Election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore: Bonnie Canaday and Lee Coumbs were elected Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, respectively. No other candidates came forward.
Removal of covenants and restrictions from Wilson Hotel property: I don't believe the city should be in the real estate business. We need to sell the Wilson, getting the best value possible for the taxpayers, and stay out of such matters in the future. The city had previously encumbered the property with requirements that it be used for hospitality services and be listed on historical registries. This measure would remove those special requirements, although zoning remains very restrictive. Practically, decreasing restrictions increases marketability and value. And on principle, I always favor the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit. Although historical preservation is a worthy pursuit and being listed has advantages, these things should never be forced. The free market has infinitely more vision and success than politicians and central planners. There were two votes, one for the Wilson and one for the Annex. I voted yes to remove the covenants on both. Measures passed 6-1 (Fund), and 7-0, respectively.
Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=127
December 13, 2011 City Council Meeting Report
Monetary gift to Centralia Downtown Association: This proposal has Centralia City Light giving $8000 cash to the Centralia Downtown Association (CDA) under the Main Street Tax Credit Incentive Program. City Light would then receive $6000 (75%) in state tax credits the following year and be reimbursed from the city's general fund for the remaining $2000. The $2000 comes from funds budgeted but not spent in 2011 for events/decorations. I appreciate the return on this investment and all the good things the CDA does. And I would be able to support something like this if, say, the contribution could be a hotel/motel funds disbursement, or directly tied to and offset by the city transferring responsibilities the taxpayers were paying for anyway. But I can't support just handing out gifts from the public treasury, no matter how good the intentions. Furthermore, with the city's budget situation, funds we didn't have to spend one year are best saved for the future. I voted no. Measure passed 6-1.
Note: private businesses can participate in this tax credit program as well. If you'd like to contribute to the CDA, this is a great way to multiply a contribution. More information on the program is at http://www.dahp.wa.gov/main-street-tax-credit-program. The CDA is on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Centralia-Downtown-Association/180518578641540.
Removing River Heights from Urban Growth Area: This is related to the proposed River Heights annexation previously rejected by the council. At the time of the rejection, it was thought River Heights residents wanted to be either fully in the city or fully in the county, rather than remain in the UGA. This vote was whether to send a letter to Lewis County requesting that this area be revised out of the UGA. River Heights residents, however, came back to the council asking for more time and consideration before making this decision. They have purchased land and made plans based on existing land-use rules, and putting them back into the county could mean big changes. This was a very reasonable request. Even though these folks can't vote for councilors, they are affected by our decisions, and their God-given property rights should be protected, too. I voted no. Measure failed 3-4, which means no changes will be made at this time. (Yeas: Canaday, Coumbs, and Henderson. Nays: Thompson, Fund, Bates, and Trent.). A workshop will also be arranged in January to discuss the issue and receive input.
Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=124&Display=Agenda
Note: private businesses can participate in this tax credit program as well. If you'd like to contribute to the CDA, this is a great way to multiply a contribution. More information on the program is at http://www.dahp.wa.gov/main-street-tax-credit-program. The CDA is on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Centralia-Downtown-Association/180518578641540.
Removing River Heights from Urban Growth Area: This is related to the proposed River Heights annexation previously rejected by the council. At the time of the rejection, it was thought River Heights residents wanted to be either fully in the city or fully in the county, rather than remain in the UGA. This vote was whether to send a letter to Lewis County requesting that this area be revised out of the UGA. River Heights residents, however, came back to the council asking for more time and consideration before making this decision. They have purchased land and made plans based on existing land-use rules, and putting them back into the county could mean big changes. This was a very reasonable request. Even though these folks can't vote for councilors, they are affected by our decisions, and their God-given property rights should be protected, too. I voted no. Measure failed 3-4, which means no changes will be made at this time. (Yeas: Canaday, Coumbs, and Henderson. Nays: Thompson, Fund, Bates, and Trent.). A workshop will also be arranged in January to discuss the issue and receive input.
Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=124&Display=Agenda
November 22, 2011 City Council Meeting Report
Really nothing new or big on this agenda. It's almost entirely the second readings of items from last meeting. Please refer to out my previous report on the 2012 budget and property tax increase from the last meeting: http://blog.thetrents.org/2011/11/november-8-2011-city-council-meeting.html
Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=123&Display=Agenda
Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=123&Display=Agenda
November 8, 2011 City Council Meeting Report
Property Tax Increase: State law allows cities to increase their property tax levy by 1% each year. Yes, this is a small increase. Most tax increases are small. The problem is they add up, and it never ends. I believe the city already collects more than enough to provide quality, basic government services. Like the state and federal governments, Centralia has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I pledged to never vote to raise taxes, and I've kept that promise. Tax increase passed, 5-2 (Trent and Henderson).
2012 Budget, first reading: Like last year's budget, this budget is not balanced. Operating expenditures are greater than revenue. More importantly, the budget is structurally unbalanced, meaning a growing deficit year-to-year, with spending increasingly outpacing revenues. I don't have a huge problem using reserves to cover a one-year "blip." But we're way past that. Sooner or later we will be forced to adjust to the "new normal." The question is, will we burn up all our reserves first?
This year, the council wisely pursued policies to divide the city's 26% unreserved fund balance ("reserves") into "buckets." This gives a clearer picture of the various demands/commitments/purposes on this seemingly large sum. 7.5% ($675k) is allocated to operating reserves. This is the money that policy allows for maintaining the status quo during a short-term downturn (which this isn't -- we're experiencing a long-term economic correction). The 2012 budget raids 35% of that. I believe this is unwise. It's time for the city to retract and adjust.
The initial deficit was almost $500k. Through mostly one-time fixes that was cut down to $292k, which we took out of reserves. This year's budget does basically nothing to address the structural deficit, which we've talked about doing in 3 years, but have no concrete plan to tackle. The parks budget is larger than the streets budget and we're talking about cutting police before lower-priority services. These are not fiscal policies I can support. I voted no. Budget passed 6-1.
I've come to believe Centralia's budget process is broken. Each year the status quo is carried forward, then we try to single out cuts. It doesn't work.
We need to turn that on its head with something closer to a zero-based model, among other reforms. It might look something like this: First, we obtain a hypothetical 5%, 10%, and 15% reduced budget from each department head. This is not for blind, across-the-board cuts. I would oppose that. This is an information gathering tool, and probably not done every year. Then each budget cycle, departments would be given a total appropriation based on available revenues and priorities. Each program then justifies its existence and expense, which is then stacked up against the total department appropriation. When the money's gone, it's gone. We also need to be more realistic and firm in union negotiations. We need to save for the future with ER&R plans for big-ticket consumables like computers and vehicles. We should also start the budget process much earlier in the year. I've been saying most of these things since day one, but they're not my ideas. These are some of the processes Lewis County and Chehalis, among others, are using.
Proposed 2012 Budget document: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/News.asp?NewsID=132
Meeting Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=119&Display=Agenda
2012 Budget, first reading: Like last year's budget, this budget is not balanced. Operating expenditures are greater than revenue. More importantly, the budget is structurally unbalanced, meaning a growing deficit year-to-year, with spending increasingly outpacing revenues. I don't have a huge problem using reserves to cover a one-year "blip." But we're way past that. Sooner or later we will be forced to adjust to the "new normal." The question is, will we burn up all our reserves first?
This year, the council wisely pursued policies to divide the city's 26% unreserved fund balance ("reserves") into "buckets." This gives a clearer picture of the various demands/commitments/purposes on this seemingly large sum. 7.5% ($675k) is allocated to operating reserves. This is the money that policy allows for maintaining the status quo during a short-term downturn (which this isn't -- we're experiencing a long-term economic correction). The 2012 budget raids 35% of that. I believe this is unwise. It's time for the city to retract and adjust.
The initial deficit was almost $500k. Through mostly one-time fixes that was cut down to $292k, which we took out of reserves. This year's budget does basically nothing to address the structural deficit, which we've talked about doing in 3 years, but have no concrete plan to tackle. The parks budget is larger than the streets budget and we're talking about cutting police before lower-priority services. These are not fiscal policies I can support. I voted no. Budget passed 6-1.
I've come to believe Centralia's budget process is broken. Each year the status quo is carried forward, then we try to single out cuts. It doesn't work.
We need to turn that on its head with something closer to a zero-based model, among other reforms. It might look something like this: First, we obtain a hypothetical 5%, 10%, and 15% reduced budget from each department head. This is not for blind, across-the-board cuts. I would oppose that. This is an information gathering tool, and probably not done every year. Then each budget cycle, departments would be given a total appropriation based on available revenues and priorities. Each program then justifies its existence and expense, which is then stacked up against the total department appropriation. When the money's gone, it's gone. We also need to be more realistic and firm in union negotiations. We need to save for the future with ER&R plans for big-ticket consumables like computers and vehicles. We should also start the budget process much earlier in the year. I've been saying most of these things since day one, but they're not my ideas. These are some of the processes Lewis County and Chehalis, among others, are using.
Proposed 2012 Budget document: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/News.asp?NewsID=132
Meeting Agenda: http://www.cityofcentralia.com/Agendas.asp?AMID=119&Display=Agenda
October 25, 2011 City Council Meeting Report
River Heights Annexation: Annexation corrects the injustice of Urban Grown Area (UGA) residents being regulated by the city, but having no representation on the council. It also means property tax and utility rate savings for them. This is the fourth annexation considered by the council this year. The first three sailed through easily.
An annexation petition is a lot of work. The petitioner in this case, Steve Wohld, was in frequent contact with city staff during the process and was given no indication of trouble. The council voted unanimously on May 24 to accept the initial petition, again with no suggestion of any issues. The city Planning Commission also unanimously recommended approval. But when it came to this vote on final acceptance, a motion to REJECT the annexation was made by Councilor Coumbs. Some stilted debate followed, during which city staff were unwilling to provide their standard approve/disapprove recommendation, and some vague reasons such as "wrong time" or "wrong direction" were given by councilors. In fact this annexation would have a negligible effect on the budget, residents already have all the utilities they want/need, the county roads in the area are better than most city streets, and the whole idea of putting areas into the UGA is to eventually annex them. Motion to reject passed 4-3 with Thompson, Coumbs, Bates, and Henderson voting to reject the annexation.
For the record: Most people know Steve Wohld is my manager at the County, and a friend. Steve knows I'd oppose him in a second if there was anything wrong with what he was doing. The county commissioners have even more direct power over my employment, and I have opposed them on several prominent policy issues.
"Co-Signing" Fox Theatre Loan: This contracts the city to provide surety ("co-signing" in layman's terms) for a loan of $75,000 from the group Centralians 1 to the Historic Fox Theatre, to be spent on a new roof. The terms are interesting: if the loan isn't repaid, the city is on the hook to pay up to the full $75k from proceeds of selling the Fox to another party (if it is sold) over and above X dollars (originally $262,500, council set to $312,521). So if the Fox folks didn't repay the loan and subsequently the Fox was sold for $250k, the city would pay nothing. If it sold for $350k, the city would pay $37,479. If it sold for $400k, the city would pay back the full $75k. If it didn't sell at all, the city would pay nothing.
If this was just a loan between two private parties (Historic Fox Theatre and Centralians 1), there'd be no problem. But regardless of the clever "ifs, ands, or buts" in the contract terms, or the likelihood of the various elements playing out, the city is putting the taxpayers on the line for a potential of up to $75,000 on behalf of a private party, for a non-government function. Due diligence was neglected: the city does not have, nor did it request, any guarantees or evidence of Historic Fox Theatre's ability to repay the loan. But moreover, there are a lot of worthy causes out there, and obviously we aren't offering this surety service to all of them. The role of government is to protect liberty, not to co-sign loans for its special friends. I voted no. Passed 6-1.
October 11, 2011 City Council Meeting Report
2011 Budget Amendment #2. Unlike amendment #1, which was a spending-down of a budget surplus from the previous year (unwise, in my opinion), this is mostly just record-keeping cleanup. I voted yes. Passed 7-0.
Findings of fact related to medical marijuana collective gardens moratorium. This is required by law following the public hearing on the moratorium. Notably, the "facts" included in this finding are only from the pro-moratorium perspective, although much testimony to the contrary was received. In any case, the matter before the city is still not about legalizing marijuana or not. That is a state-level question; cities don't have that power. The moratorium is a property rights question. I don't believe restricting property rights is an appropriate or effective way to address the medical marijuana debate. I voted no. Item passed, 6-1.
Amend indoor pool contract. The operation and maintenance of the Centralia Indoor Pool is governed by a contract between the Centralia School District, Thorbeckes, and the City of Centralia. Each year it is amended to update the numbers on the utilities costs which are split between the City and the District. With budget season in full swing and the recent interest/debate/uncertainty surrounding the pool, I believe this is a good time to take a good look at that contract. The city's interests do not appear to be well represented in the contract terms: for instance the other parties each have an "out," but the City has none. I moved that this item be tabled until after next Monday's budget workshop. Motion passed, 7-0. Item tabled.
September 27, 2011 Council Meeting Report
Medical marijuana collective gardens moratorium public hearing: The city was required to hold this hearing after enacting a 6-month moratorium on medical marijuana collective gardens. City staff testified in favor of the moratorium, and stated they will be bringing another 6-month extension of it before the council. Members of the public who testified were all against the moratorium. Arguments on both sides were similar to testimony given prior to the vote on the moratorium several weeks ago. This was a hearing and no action was taken. I'll comment further when the vote on the moratorium extension comes along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)