Questions for City Council

The City's Pulse Issue #24 Aug 23, 2007 by Mary Souza
Questions for City Council Congratulations to the city council for making time to respond to questions from the public. People of this rapidly changing city have concerns and need to know they can bring their issues forward for respectful consideration by their local government. That is what I saw happening at last Tuesday night’s meeting. The invitation to this special meeting for questions was printed as an article in last week’s Friday edition of this paper. The city council changed their usual meeting format to allow more time for questions and promised, in the invitation article, to provide answers for those questions. The council chamber was packed with people. Many citizens were there to pose questions, more were there to listen and lend support. Most of the department heads from the city were present also, along with the city administrator and city attorney. The questions were an eclectic mix of subjects: from city budget concerns to dog breed restrictions, Jewett House use to street tree ownership, from parkland acquisition to urban renewal oversight. Everyone was nice and polite. There was an actual exchange of ideas in a well-mannered way. I was impressed with the preparation of the questioners. These community members were bringing forward important questions and they had their ducks in a row. They had done their research, many brought documentation and they asked in-depth, intelligent questions. The city council members attempted to answer some of the questions, but for most issues they brought up the department head in charge of that particular area. This seemed appropriate on certain niche issues, like Jewett House or the animal shelter plan. But on the big issues, such as the $18 million dollar overage on the budget and the urban renewal agency’s financial impact on schools, the city council should have been able to answer for themselves. I wanted to see them explain these major issues and the decisions they have made in regard to them. I wanted to evaluate the level of understanding that our city council members have on these complex subjects. In this regard I was not impressed. The council showed little comprehension of the budget overspending, and deferred quickly to the city financial manager for his roundabout answer. Equally as disconcerting was the council’s fuzzy understanding of urban renewal requirements. After much discussion back and forth between council members and the well prepared citizens asking questions, the mayor and council agreed to ask LCDC, our urban renewal agency, for an important item required by state law, a financial impact statement for each taxing district it affects. The city council and mayor are the only oversight protection that we, the citizens, have for the use of millions of public tax dollars by urban renewal. They should know the laws better than the citizens standing before them. This did not seem to be the case. On other issues as well, the council did not appear well versed. They, as well as the city attorney, did not seem informed about right-of-way ownership or street tree and sidewalk issues. This is surprising in light of the city’s recent push to require homeowners to fix broken sidewalks at their own expense, take out or alter the street trees causing the problems and then pay the city a permit fee on top of it all. And on the subject of Person Field, what was not said was more important than what was. When asked directly to pledge that Person Field would remain a park, the mayor would not do so. She claimed she could not bind future city councils to that commitment. But she could have promised that during her tenure as mayor the use of the park would not change. She did not; those words were never spoken. On balance, I think the city council’s question-and-answer meeting was a success. I’d like to see much more of that style of interaction. The citizens need regular opportunities to voice their concerns. How about a once-a-month meeting devoted to public questions? Tuesday’s meeting was a good start so let’s keep the community conversation going.

Questions for City Council

Congratulations to the city council for making time to respond to questions from the public. People of this rapidly changing city have concerns and need to know they can bring their issues forward for respectful consideration by their local government. That is what I saw happening at last Tuesday night’s meeting. The invitation to this special meeting for questions was printed as an article in last week’s Friday edition of this paper. The city council changed their usual meeting format to allow more time for questions and promised, in the invitation article, to provide answers for those questions.

The council chamber was packed with people. Many citizens were there to pose questions, more were there to listen and lend support. Most of the department heads from the city were present also, along with the city administrator and city attorney.

The questions were an eclectic mix of subjects: from city budget concerns to dog breed restrictions, Jewett House use to street tree ownership, from parkland acquisition to urban renewal oversight. Everyone was nice and polite. There was an actual exchange of ideas in a well-mannered way. I was impressed with the preparation of the questioners. These community members were bringing forward important questions and they had their ducks in a row. They had done their research, many brought documentation and they asked in-depth, intelligent questions.

The city council members attempted to answer some of the questions, but for most issues they brought up the department head in charge of that particular area. This seemed appropriate on certain niche issues, like Jewett House or the animal shelter plan. But on the big issues, such as the $18 million dollar overage on the budget and the urban renewal agency’s financial impact on schools, the city council should have been able to answer for themselves. I wanted to see them explain these major issues and the decisions they have made in regard to them. I wanted to evaluate the level of understanding that our city council members have on these complex subjects. In this regard I was not impressed. The council showed little comprehension of the budget overspending, and deferred quickly to the city financial manager for his roundabout answer.

Equally as disconcerting was the council’s fuzzy understanding of urban renewal requirements. After much discussion back and forth between council members and the well prepared citizens asking questions, the mayor and council agreed to ask LCDC, our urban renewal agency, for an important item required by state law, a financial impact statement for each taxing district it affects. The city council and mayor are the only oversight protection that we, the citizens, have for the use of millions of public tax dollars by urban renewal. They should know the laws better than the citizens standing before them. This did not seem to be the case.

On other issues as well, the council did not appear well versed. They, as well as the city attorney, did not seem informed about right-of-way ownership or street tree and sidewalk issues. This is surprising in light of the city’s recent push to require homeowners to fix broken sidewalks at their own expense, take out or alter the street trees causing the problems and then pay the city a permit fee on top of it all.

And on the subject of Person Field, what was not said was more important than what was. When asked directly to pledge that Person Field would remain a park, the mayor would not do so. She claimed she could not bind future city councils to that commitment. But she could have promised that during her tenure as mayor the use of the park would not change. She did not; those words were never spoken.

On balance, I think the city council’s question-and-answer meeting was a success. I’d like to see much more of that style of interaction. The citizens need regular opportunities to voice their concerns. How about a once-a-month meeting devoted to public questions? Tuesday’s meeting was a good start so let’s keep the community conversation going.