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.
