$1.6 million City expansion falls flat
By Ali Akhyari
In a controversial decision that ended with flared tempers and name calling, the City Council voted 4-3 against a resolution that would have resulted in the City spending $1.6 million for a 5000 square foot expansion of City Hall and the Public Safety Department. Council members Dave Stormer, Eddie Ellis, Tom Scruggs and Tim Goodwin made up the majority of the expansion’s opposition.
Mayor Carl Beckmann believes it’s “all political”, adding that there is no other explanation for anyone to vote against the expansion. “It’s a slap in the face to staff,” he said, to those who have worked hard on the current plan. At the end of the City Council meeting, Beckmann took a moment to publicly criticize the opposition.
“What Council has done proves this Council has no regard for staff, workspace or otherwise. This is the eleventh hour, do-nothing Council. I’m looking out for the residents of this City and you, my friends, are not,” he said. As the opposing Council members began to object, Beckmann banged his gavel to officially end the meeting.
Mayor Beckmann said that if any of the four opponents had issues with the plan, they should have spoken with him about it before the vote. However, none of them, according to Beckmann, were willing to sit down and address the plan. Instead, they waited until the last moment to “blow the project out of the water”.
“It’s sad. If that’s not political, then I don’t know what is,” he said.
However, the Mayor’s own comments could epitomize two of the largest reasons for the plan’s failure: miscommunication and fact misrepresentation. For example, while Beckmann claims that no one concerned about the expansion tried to talk to him about the plan, Stormer said that he sent the Mayor and the City Administrator memos as early as November of 2008 suggesting alternatives and expressing a need for a “neutral” architect. He claimed that neither replied to him. Ellis publicly referred to Beckmann’s statement as a lie.
Stormer, who has been the plan’s antagonist from the beginning, believes that the process used to develop and present the plan was questionable and resulted in a fallible cost assessment. For example, while attempting to sell the project to the public, Beckmann claimed that no tax increase would be necessary for the expansion. However, there was no accounting for the estimated $50,000 per year in maintenance and operation cost which the extra space would require, in addition to having to furnish 5000 square feet of additional space, Stormer argued.
PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) money was also an issue, as it is the reason the project could supposedly be done without raising taxes. However, some consider this a “hidden” tax itself. PILOT funds are the result of the City taking 15% of the Water Utility’s revenue. Of course, that is money that is paid by residents and water bills have been raised to account for PILOT since its inception in 1997. While it’s not technically a tax on residents, they are the ones providing the money. This is important because the funds are currently used to pay the debt service on the current City Hall building, which is scheduled to be repaid in full in two years.
Additionally, while the City currently has a kennel for dogs and cats, the expansion actually removes the kennel, and the $1.6 million plan doesn’t include room for a new one. This was a problem for at least one Council member, Eddie Ellis, who voted against the plan. Beckmann said that they are looking into leasing an adjacent lot and building a kennel there, but the cost was not factored into the “tax-free” project.
One of the most agitating aspects of the issue arose from the “us versus them” attitude taken by the most outspoken proponents of the plan: Mayor Beckmann and Public Safety Director Terry Boatwright. Both made statements that attacked the character of anyone who might vote against the project.
Reiterating a previous speech to Council, Boatwright pleaded for approval before exclaiming “It blows my mind!” in reference to the fact that some Council members might not put their stamp of approval on the plan.
“You can’t tell me you care a flipping thing about the employees and not provide them with the tools they need,” he added. “This is not something you need to be playing politics with.”
However, every member of the Council has agreed that space is needed. Boatwright’s statement was taken personally by Scruggs, who pointed out that the Chief has a “pretty nice job”, gets a nice paycheck from the City and a free car to drive, as well as other benefits paid for with tax money to which he has the luxury of not contributing.
“You don’t live here,” Scruggs said to Boatwright before explaining that he should use tax payer’s money responsibly.
Whether unintentional or strategic, the inability to focus on facts and communicate effectively created a schism on Council, making any compromise on the project an impossibility. Of course, the fact remains that the City’s staff needs more space.
“The ball’s in their court,” Beckmann said, referring to the those who voted against the plan. “It’s all political.” For Council member Stormer, the success of his vote is an opportunity to explore alternatives which he feels were neglected in the face of the $1.6 million expansion, and will encourage his fellow Council members to do the same.
“Bottom line remains that Public Safety needs space,” Stormer says. “There are options that have not been explored that need to be explored.”
In the meantime, those directly affected by the dramatized delay can only hope that the City Council returns to the drawing board with an agreeable spirit. However, if you were at the November 10 City Council meeting, your hope may have been crushed as 30 minutes of debate were required for Council members to agree on the details of a special meeting to be held on November 19 where they will debate the matter again. It looks to be a long road.
