Taxes

All posts tagged Taxes

No on issue 6, part 3 – The Income tax option for Grandview Heights schools has been neglected

Published October 26, 2018 by justicewg

Three signs #6I have read a number of opponents of issue #6 who dislike the unfairness of the property tax the board wants to use for the facilities, and the loss of older and lower income segments of the community, as the taxes drive these people away*. Property taxes are inherently regressive, costing a larger percentage of the income for lower income people.

An income tax would still hurt those who have low incomes, but it would probably be a smaller hit, and impact all segments of the community the same. Why has the possibility of an income tax been almost totally dismissed throughout the facility review process?

Unanswered questions about income taxes

I checked back in past documents and found almost nothing about evaluating an income tax for the school facility improvements. During Community Engagement Meeting #6, held June 8, 2017, Treasurer Collier did say that there was a possibility of using an income tax.

https://www.ghcsd.org/apps/video/watch.jsp?v=150462

Skip ahead in the video by dragging the progress bar, at 1:26:10 an income tax is discussed. No projections were made by Collier for how much income tax would be needed to address the school needs. All questions about the possibility of an income tax were being left for the Finance committee.**

Treasurer Collier said that the Finance committee would be looking at the income tax possibility, but with no statement of support for an income tax from the school board, the committee was left to take all the heat generated from proposing an income tax. Without a specific mandate from the board to explore income taxes ( and come up with a plan, instead of a quick dismissal) , why would any committee place themselves in the position of proposing a new kind of tax?

Why would something as important as exploring the possibility of a new income tax for the school be left in the hands of a closed, no meeting notes, no accountability committee? This is the same question we asked about the recommendation from the Finance committee to add a one mill operation levy to the bond levy – why is a closed group, in violation of Ohio Open meeting laws, making decisions that should be made by the school board?

Why open meetings are important

We have no way to find out what happened in the Finance committee meetings. Was the option of an income tax even discussed? There was no recording of the meetings, there was no meeting notes. Emails to participants are not answered.

Maybe there was a significant number of FC members who thought that an income tax would be the best way to fund the school improvements? And if the community were allowed to attend those meetings, we could have noted who argued in favor, and the reasons they gave. We could take that information to the board, and ask them to revisit the possibility. We could have promoted the option of an income tax in community groups like G4G, and organized a groundswell of support for that option.

All those possibilities are gone, because the Finance committee was closed, because all of the process and deliberations of the group – which those members told us they did in depth and for many hours – are lost forever. Any new finance committee which may be needed to revisit the facility questions after a failed levy will have to start from zero.

The board should be the only group discussing tax options

Tax levies are the most important issues the board is legally empowered to decide for the schools. It is the basic floor that all the rest of the school system is built on. Unless the money from the taxpayers can be acquired by a board that is trusted, and earns the votes of the community, all of the planing and policy of the board means nothing.

School boards are supposed to be open, conducting all discussion on tax levies so the community can evaluate the arguments. We can listen, be persuaded — or be opposed. Most importantly, we can know which board members made what arguments. When elections for seats on the board come around, we can remember who we liked, and give them our vote. We can campaign against the members who don’t do a good job.

The foundation of democracy is listening to the public office holders, and making them accountable in the polling place.

When the Grandview Heights school board delegates vital issues to closed committees, they are breaking the laws of Ohio on open meetings. They are actively degrading the democratic basis of our community. We should never accept that as “the way we do things here”. We should be telling the board, over and over, “you are wrong, stop taking away out democratic rights”. We should keep doing that until they understand they are wrong – or until they are voted out of office.

Dayton Task force cancels meetings

Tip of the hat to Stephanie Wolfe. A Dayton school system tried to hold facility task force meetings in private, similar to the Grandview Task force and Finance committees. After complaints from news media that Ohio open meting laws required the meetings to allow everyone to attend, the meetings were canceled.

Previously – Vote no on issue #6, part 1

Vote no on issue #6, part 2

Read the rest of this entry →

Advertisements

Vote no on issue #6, part 2 – the NRI deal

Published October 19, 2018 by justicewg

Three signs #6The school is trying to complete a negotiation with NRI that could accelerate the tax payments from the Yard, to the point where the boost in tax money may becomes as much as 50% of the cost of the bond the board needs to build a new middle school. Why should voters pass the present levy, when we could have a significantly smaller one via waiting until the negotiations are finished?

The deal

Early in 2018, the school board started negotiation with NRI over increasing the rate of tax money coming from the Grandview Yard development. The board had almost completed the facility meetings, and had set themselves a goal of building a new middle school – the only uncompleted work was the finance committee recommendation to increase the already high $50 million plan from Culp up to a $55 million plan with the extra connector between the schools.

The board was also fully aware of the objections to the new school plan by the G4G group. That unprecedented group spelled levy doom for board members who were not living in a fantasy world. Normal, uncontroversial levies have only passed with 60% yes votes in the past, an opposition group insured failure of the levy (and the two additional NO on #6 groups are the nails in the levy coffin).

I’m of two minds over the board’s attempt to cut a new deal with NRI. Was it just an amateurish mistake to attempt to renegotiate taxes with NRI. and pass the bond at the same time? Even the slowest members on the board must have known they were shooting themselves in the feet with the uncertainty added by the NRI deal. I also think it might have been a desperation move by the board, they knew they would fail in the levy attempt, so they wanted to have some way to win – even if it was by completing a deal that would be bad for both the the school and the city. As long as they got some money, they could claim victory, as long as THEY were the ones who got some money out of NRI..

Whatever the motivation, we now have a deal in progress that might bring substantial money from Grandview Yard, well ahead of past deals. Lets look at what the Mayor said about the deal.

The Mayor and the council

Before the quotes from the Mayor, to be clear – he supports the school levy, So do all the council members who have been asked. They support it because:

It is a normal thing for the board and the council to support each other when they have a levy on the ballot. This is standard mutual support – it is what good politicians do *.

And the council will be asking for new tax money for a new city hall next May. They want the school levy issue completed so they are not both asking for new taxes at the same time.

The mayor speaks

How much additional money will (the NRI deal) mean to the school?
There are some initial estimates using various assumptions, but I do not want to speculate until we have an agreement. I believe we are close. It should be recognized that until recently the City and School have estimated only the dollars coming to the school of what is actually built. We both are fiscally conservative. Those figures indicated that the school would receive about $60 million over the next 20 years. For a long time, this was the figured used. We now have more information on what is being proposed in the current project, which would bring an estimated additional $18 million, or $78 million total to the school. Add to this the development to the south of Goodale and modified school compensation agreement and that figure could almost double. – Mayor DeGraw

Re-read that last sentence for the most important news. The school might be getting $78 million, through modifying the TIF agreement. But the additional taxes that might come from the construction of new buildings south of Goodale could be another boost, up to $156 million total.

This is the most important question – why are we being asked to pass a high levy by the board, when they are on the verge of receiving news that could completely change the financial position of the school?

Committee for Grandview Heights Schools pamphlet

The Pro-levy committee sent a brochure out to every home in the city, answering questions about the levy. What do they say about the NRI deal, in a bullet point section?

The need is now, and at this point no agreement has been reached with NRI.

OK, most taxpayers want to know what they are getting into, and can wait a year for a deal to be completed. What is the rush? Are their bulldozers sitting near the middle school, ready to start the demolition?

The NRI deal could reduced costs to residents by 50% , but could never cover the entire costs

So what? If my income might go up by 50%, I sure would want to wait until I know for sure, before I buy a house. Who cares what percentage the NRI deal covers? If it is significant, we should wait.

Delaying the project would result in added costs.

The committee doesn’t have a crystal ball that allows them foolproof projections on cost, but they do have this thing called “history”. The cost of construction went down in 2008, due to recession. “Costs always rise” is not true. Also, income to the school will be rising, because of the additional tax money from the Yard (tax money that was negotiated in the past, not the current deal). Everyone with any financial skills at all should be shouting “STOP, do not sign contracts for construction when your income is in flux”.

Waiting until the NRI deal is reached would not change the ballot millage, however, it would reduce the taxes the school could collect from residents.

I think the brain power of this committee just completely gave out at this point in the brochure. That talking point is one that belongs to the anti-levy groups, the important issue is the tax rates we are going to pay. If the need for operation millage is going down, we should wait until the financial position of the school is clear.

Implied in the statement “no change in the ballot millage” (I think they mean to say bond millage) is a threat – pass this levy, or we will come back, over and over, asking for the same amount. We will never listen to critics and cut the size of the school facility plan. That threat supports the need to vote the current board out of office.

Part three of my “reasons to vote no on issue #6” will be covering the effects of high taxes on the community, and how the board has failed to make obvious moves that could have protected fixed income and lower income residents.

The YT information session

In past years, the school used to hold public meetings before levies, and would answer questions from the community. I just read the following from the school:

Superintendent Culp and Treasurer Collier are holding an online Community Conversation on Monday, October 22 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. They will be at the YouTube feed at  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvM52He47uyzfX0bnjSsz-w.

The superintendent is so deep in the bunker, he can only answer pre-screened questions on YT? For one hour?

(Later) The YT session had “technical issues” and started late, and probably lost all the viewers. They only answered questions that were the softest of the softballs – for 26 minutes. There was one answer that was important, to a question about what the board will do when the levy fails. Will the board do some self examination, and rethink the $55 million plan? Or ignore all the critics, and start plans to cut programs at the schools? Spoiler – Culp only talks about the latter. More on this later.

Previously – Reasons to vote no on the levy, part 1 – The Grandview Heights school board is not trustworthy

Read the rest of this entry →

Use the Franklin Co. Auditor tool to find your tax increase

Published September 19, 2018 by justicewg

FC Aud calcThe school board has thrown some figures out for the increases in your taxes if the school levy in November passes. Now, you can get the exact figure, direct from the Franklin Co. Auditor website.

https://apps.franklincountyauditor.com/LevyEstimator

“The Tax Levy Estimator is an easy-to-use tool that allows Franklin County residents the ability to estimate the annual cost associated with proposed tax levies. In addition, property owners can see how their property taxes are distributed to the various political subdivisions within Franklin County.”

Tips for use – enter only your house number in the “Address No.” field.

Enter only your street name in the “Street Name “ field, no “ave” or “Blvd”.

After you hit search, scroll down to look for the results. There is no indicator inside the search box to tell you if it worked.

Scroll down to the “Grandview Heights CSD” box for the results of the Nov. levy. The total line at the bottom of the box shows the results for both the bond and the operating levies.

Don’t forget to go back up and check out the Franklin Co. box, it has tax increases from the MRDD (which passed in last fall’s election and didn’t increase taxes, it was just a renewal) and Metro parks levies that will be on the November ballot.

Good for Grandview meeting was a packed house

The Good for Grandview group had an informational meeting tonight. Word is (didn’t attend, but got reports) that levy campaign Co-Chair Katie Matney was there and acknowledged that they believe the NRI renegotiation could reduce the Levy need by 50%. And they still want you to vote for the full $55 million tax! I wonder if  Matney said “Having those feelings (of distrust in the levy) are normal and natural”.

(UPDATE) The tax levy is sure to fail now (but be sure to vote!), so maybe this isn’t so important any more, but G4G reminds us, the bond gives the school board the irrevocable authority to tax for 38 years after passage. Even if this board cut taxes as a result of the NRI deal, any future board could restore the full tax, for any reason.

Tax expiration on the Bond for the middle school gym and Glenn room.

Read the rest of this entry →

Current progress, Grandview Crossing

Published March 29, 2018 by justicewg
The dirt pile

The dirt pile

The development at the corner of Grandview Ave and 33 was originally projected to become a big box store anchored retail development, the 2006 plans were called “Grandview Station”. Opposition to the development by the city, and the downturn of the great recession, killed that first attempt.

We are now up to version two of the Wagenbrenner owned Grandview Crossing development (original plan in this 2016 story).

We are still years away from the start of construction, the long history of change in planning makes any prediction of the final form unreliable. This is the current dream.

The stats today

GC is now 52 acres, purchases from the railroad have expanded it some. The Grandview section is 16 acres, about 36 acres are in Columbus, which also must approve plans. Because Grandview will probably ask for more Mixed Urban, Multi-story plans than Columbus, we can probably set the tone for the entire development.

The project now is projecting 200K square feet of office, about 128K square feet of retail and restaurants, and about 1,178 residential units. The Grandview section is expected to include a hotel, a four-story, 240-unit senior-housing complex and three one-story retail/commercial buildings. An additional building might include 27 rental units above retail stores. Read the TVN story for more details of the current plans.

Implications for Grandview – more tax money from a hotel, retail stores, and residential housing. Because the senior living building will have no children, we have no reason to expect more kids attending Grandview schools (maybe a few from the 27 rental units).

Not mentioned in the TVN story – how did the developers get approval for residential buildings on top of the old dump site? Maybe the additional property bought from the railroad is the location of the housing (the Grandview section was not a waste dump, it was last occupied by a motel).

The location of the housing just yards away from a busy railroad track doesn’t make much sense to me. But then I couldn’t understand the appeal of the rental development behind the Lennox, and it appears to be thriving. I guess people just learn to adapt to the noise.

The entrance into the property from Grandview Avenue is still part of the plans. Read this story from 2015 with then council president Panzera’s take on the possibility of traffic problems cause by this entrance. In the time since this story, traffic has only gotten worse in that section of Grandview Ave. during rush hours. I’ll ask the council if there are any new plans for traffic control for this entrance.

A new traffic light on Grandview Ave

(Edit ) The April 2 city council meeting had some more discussion of the Grandview Crossing plans. Go to the minute 28 committee report by Panzera on the video. At around minute 34 he says that a traffic light south of the train tracks is the only way to make the new entrance to GC work. I don’t see how adding a traffic light is going to make an already slow section of the road get anything but slower.

Culp’s G4G video response, and why it is unimportant

Published March 9, 2018 by justicewg
culp-leads-laughter

Andy Culp promotes laughing at community comments at the first public facility meeting.

There is an email circulating in Granview that is supposed to be a response from superintendent Culp to the G4G video. I’ll get back to the email, but first some straight talk about the way things work in the Grandview Heights school board, why they don’t respond to any criticism – and why they should be the ones responding to G4G.

A long history of Policy Governance

I have written often in this blog about the way the school board believes in Policy Governance. If you want a the long form story on that theory of governance, you can read the Wiki article. Here is the short version:

“The board will focus on strategic leadership rather than administrative detail; observe clear distinction between Board and CEO roles; make collective rather than individual decisions; …”

That quote was from the Columbus school board website, back when they were firmly entrenched in Policy Governance. It is as good a summary as any I have found for how the Grandview board operates.

The board treats the superintendent like a CEO of a private company. They don’t want to be bothered with hearing complaints about the daily operation of the school, they are only “big picture” focused. So you get board meetings where the super lists his recommendations, and the board complies, five votes yes. You never read challenges to the ideas the super promotes in any school board meeting.

The board is big on using ideas from business, like using a committee composed of people from private companies. This is part of the “run the government like a business” that is a mantra of the republicans.

The board almost always votes unanimously. Years pass between split votes. The theory from Policy Governance is that the board should be letting the CEO run the school, so there should be no opposition from the board. In a practical, real world application, the people who want to change school policy go to board members in private, then the board communicates with each other outside of meetings to form policy.

Another big reason the board is always unanimous – members who stake out positions in public that are not immediately accepted and become unanimous policy would be venerable to challenge in the next election. You can’t pick out individuals when the board is always a faceless collective.

The present board has another favorite method of forming school policy outside of meetings, the facility Task force and Finance committee are run by board members, and greatly control school policy, but they are closed to public attendance and meeting notes are not allowed out of the room. Culp tries to claim these meetings are not being run by the board, therefore are not part of the Open Meeting laws. He is wrong.

The board should be responding to G4G

Read the rest of this entry →

New school facility FAQ vs the G4G video

Published March 2, 2018 by justicewg

The school administration has updated the facility FAQ on the school website with new information about the facility numbers and process. Although the board and the administration still refuse to acknowledge the Good for Grandview group, they obviously are responding to some of the points the G4G has made on their website. The G4G group meanwhile has produced a new video that summarized the facts about the facilities in a short, easy to watch video. Lets look at what each of them are saying.

New FAQ on the school website

Faq is a scamThe new FAQ on the school website has the current spin from the school board on the facility process. By the way, that link in the preceding sentence goes directly to the web page on the school website. If you got a email from the superintendent this week that listed a link to the FAQ, you probably got a warning from your email service that said “The link might be a scam”. The problem is that the link in Culp’s email doesn’t link directly to the school website, it first sends you to a tracking service used by the school’s messenger newsletter software. So the school will know which IP addresses clicked on the link (not unusual, but I had to note that the school’s links are listed as scams by some email clients).

Leading with $44.5 million dollars in deferred maintenance

The school board is not going to back off the deceptive $44.5 million number, they jump right on it in the first paragraph, and defend it with a full section of the FAQ. Even though the G4G did a good take down that showed why that is an inappropriate number, the board is refusing to budge an inch.

Quick review of the debate – HPG came up with this number as a full cost to make all of the schools meet current building codes. The problem is that only new construction is required to meet these codes, there is nothing unsafe about the old codes. If you had to make your 90 year old Grandview home meet all of the current new construction codes, you might also figure it is cheaper to build new. But almost nobody does that, because it isn’t needed, and it destroys a historic building for no good reason (unless you like new construction, in which case you can buy a new house in Hilliard).

The board also fails to answer questions about how they parted on bad terms with HPG, and the unanswered questions throw a shadow over the HPG report. In fact, Harrison himself said that the $44 million number was not an appropriate number for this debate.

In the FAQ the board insists that “it would take $44.5 million to simply address our building maintenance needs.” , then they discount the K-12 Consulting report that gave the board a much lower number. The board disparages the K-12 consultants as being unqualified to give an accurate number (but then that raises the question, why did the board hire a consultant that isn’t qualified?).

They then list the replacement of a boiler and a roof as “unplanned expenditures”, in an attempt to show that the K-12 report didn’t have the full, accurate numbers. However, a careful reading of that report shows that boiler and roof replacement was accounted for as a part of the needed maintenance over the next ten years. The board blatantly lied about the contents of the K-12 report.

The FAQ continues to use the effective tax rate, and doesn’t mention the real, total voted millage (where Grandview has the highest number in all the school districts). They also try to insist that residents received “only 5.6 increase in property tax” after the 2017 revaluation. I wouldn’t call that number “ONLY 5.6%”, as though it requires a simple effortless budget shift to find that extra money. And that number was an average – many people now pay even more.

(Edit –  Apparently that 5.6% was more accurately the increase attributed to the  revaluation, when you add the increases cause by other taxes it adds up to 9.3%, and the board is still calling it ONLY 9.3%. Funny, when the board was dealing with cuts from the state, it wasn’t a “ONLY 5%”. When the school gets cut, it becomes “a pretty significant dropoff”.)

The FAQ ends with asking how much the school spends per student , and how that compares to other districts – and fails to answer its own question.

One big change in the school FAQ is the deletion of a section that listed the outside consultants who have done work on the facilities process, and an accounting of the money spent on these companies. Last year the total they admitted to was at least $200 thousand. I have heard that the number is now well over $250K, and that number will spike well above that if the board hires more public relations people to push a doomed levy in the fall.

 

Good for Grandview video

Go watch the video produced by G4G. It’s only 4 minutes long, and is a lot more fun to watch than this sucky blog. (Later) The G4G have taken down their video, they are now in the process of deciding how to react to the board’s $55 million levy bid).

High points – the property tax vs median household income is the chart that is most important. Taxes have gone up, but the average income has not matched that increase. The 2008 great recession hit hard, and while the economy is back, incomes have not recovered much. More importantly, household wealth – the total assets (land, property, money saved, etc.) took a big hit in the recession and many have not recovered. Retirement money was used, and many of those scraping by have not put the money back. People are still hurting. They simply don’t have the income to vote for new taxes.

The G4G video makes a point of this, Grandview is not composed of just doctors and lawyers, we still have some people with lower incomes, and retired folks with fixed income. New taxes will drive these people out. You will never hear the school board say a word about the impact new taxes will have on the people who can least afford them.

That reminds me of a story I heard about back when the board was pushing the 2002 tax increase, when voters rejected a ridiculous 9.8 + 4 + 4 incremental school levy. Board members were calling up residents, and told them that “people who can’t pay for new taxes should shut up and move out”. I’m guessing some variant of that message will be used for the next levy campaign.

No comparison

So who wins in the school FAQ vs the G4G video? Let’s see – the school board stubbornly repeats useless numbers and refuses to concede that they made any errors in the HPG scandal, or the anti-democratic hiding of school policy creation in the closed task force and finance committees. Their tactic seems to be “fingers in ears, yell the same lies louder”.

The G4G has created a video that has a perfect balance of good information about the past, and points to the way we can get to a better outcome for the schools and the community without tearing the school into warring factions. Is there any question about who wins?

Finance committee failing to make their schedule

Just today we learned from Culp that the closed to the community Finance committee, scheduled to make a report before the community on March 12, will not be ready by that date. No new date has been set. Culp is claiming that they are “still in the process of doing research”.

Given the history of deception from the board, you have to wonder – is this some rebellion that has to be quashed? Maybe – but I have been burned in the past hoping that some group will stand up to the board and tell them that they are a bunch of idiots. We will see. Finance committee members – anyone want to be a good guy and let the community know what is really happening? Use my “about” section to send an anonymous message.

City of Grandview Heights – Comprehensive Community Planning process

Published February 2, 2018 by justicewg

(update – the first city planning meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at the Shelter at Wyman Woods at 7:00 p.m.)

Presentation at Jan 16 meeting

The city of Grandview Heights is starting a comprehensive community planning process, it might seem familiar to those who have attended the school’s facility planning meetings, but the city planning meetings are much wider in scope. Commercial development, residential development, neighborhoods, pedestrian safety and walk-ability, city finance – the whole gamut of issues the city council must plan for are going to be up for public discussion.

This post will be a little confusing, because of the way the city posted the information on YouTube. The city council meeting with the presentation is in one video (above), the graphics on the screen behind the speaker are on another video.

10:00 start of presentation. If I heard right, Greg Dale was the man giving the presentation.

11:10 Discussed the work the council did at a workshop on Nov. 30 2017. There were photos of five whiteboards worth of discussion points from that meeting. The focus of that meeting was for the council to discuss the “forces and trends” on the community. Thirty trends were written down, and 24 of what were called priority issues.

12:20 Presenter stressed that the material on the board was a snapshot of one day of work from the council, and the forces and trends will be changed as the wider community is brought in to the process.

13:50 The guy doing the presentation said that the use of the word “zeitgeist” in the workshop was the first time he had heard that word used in 30 years of meetings. It is a perfectly cromulent word! He says the the planning process is not a set process, that there is an “art” to defining a community and its issues.

15:00 The zeitgeist slide attempted to highlight the different groups who need to work together – “new vs old Grandview”, young people vs retired, rich vs less rich (no poor people in Grandview). The council seemed to want to work to reconcile the differences in the city, and not shut out those who are normally left out. The question this slide brings up is, how do you get to parts of the community that are least willing to attend meetings? Young people are tough to reach.

16:20 Neighborhoods and build slide. Lots of issues with density and how to allow multi-family buildings while preserving old single family areas.

17:48 Public realm slide. Talking about traffic and walk-ability issues. Infrastructure and green space. They even wanted to discuss how autonomous vehicles will change parking in the city. (I’m with atrios on this, self driving cars are still 20 years away.)

18;50 Public services and facilities. There was a repeat of a line I heard from the Mayor, that as Grandview attracts more higher income people, they will be expecting more services, like a big recreation complex. Maybe, but the town is still small, and runs into funding issues that Grandview Yard taxes are probably not going to completely solve.

19:30 Resiliency. This one seemed like a good idea, but there are no simple solutions. Yes, the city should be able to roll with the punches that the future might bring, but that is sort of the opposite of setting a course for the future, and sticking to the plan.

Comment from the presentation guy “I have never felt more uncertain about the future than I am right now”. Great! Let’s plot a course to the future, while the deck of the ship is rolling all over the place!

22:15 Public Facilities and the public planning. This is where a lot of meetings to be held will converge with planning the buildings that are needed in the future. Too much here, read the slide. The thing that I got out of it was that the overall community planning might be one track of meetings that takes a whole year, but the meetings that are focused on facilities might be a separate track that splits off and has its own time line. The council and the Mayor are ready to build, and they want it soon.

From what the presenter says this night, the council is so ready to move into the facilities process that not only do they want a separate track, they don’t want to wait for any completion of the more general planning process. I think this is a big mistake.

First, splitting off facilities detracts from the focus of the more general process. The community only has a limited attention span, and ability to attend meetings. Splitting off into two tracks will make both less focused, and less attended.

Second, the general planning track graphic shows a bubble that says “Capital and Facilities recommendations ”, and that is AFTER the split of the facilities track? The implication is that there will be two different plans for the facilities, worked on by two different groups. That is way too confusing to explain to the community.

As much as the council is chomping at the bit to get to work on the facilities, I think the general planning track needs to get done with the recommendation phase before the facility track starts.

This is my own comment to the council on the issues of city facilities. Yes, we know that the police and the fire departments need better buildings. We got that back in the 90’s, when the city tried twice to pass levies, and failed. Don’t try to manipulate the process, don’t push too hard, because the public knows when they are being scammed. The school board is about to learn that lesson when their levies for a $50 million school fail big time. Don’t follow their lead.

Above all, make all parts of the process open for inspection (don’t use the T word, the board has made it toxic). Everything should be open for public attendance, everything recorded, videos made, posted up on the web.

Videos posted of meetings

The first large public meeting of the planning process on April 10 was posted to YT.

The Steering Committee is the sub-group that will manage the public meetings, they had a May 17 meeting and posted it on YT.