" /> granolapark: February 2007 Archives

« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 22, 2007

Now Is Not That Time

Dear Readers,

As the grapeshot zinged past her head and the sulfurous cannon smoke billowed over the poop deck, the Mayor cried “This is not a battle, this is a community discussion.”

The boarding party lowered their cutlasses in shame as she chided them to be respectful of others’ opinions, as she assured them she respects theirs. “I don’t think there’s a wrong and right on this.” she said.

Though the gym ba . . community discussion was not on the agenda Feb. 20, it came up in councilmembers’ comments at the beginning of the Takoma Park City Council meeting.

Bruce Williams’ statement raised a few gunpowder-singed eyebrows. After a lengthy introduction that sounded like he was making a strong case for building the gym, he abruptly hove to and came about.

“I believe” he said “ that a gym would serve many worthwhile purposes, and I hope that at some point we will be able to build a gym. Unfortunately, now is not that time.”

Williams said he had reached this conclusion because of the hefty price. He cited a price tag of 8 to 9 million dollars, but “Even $6 million is more than we can afford right now.” Another factor is the erosion in public trust due to the lengthy and costly community center construction process.

Councilmember Joy Austin-Lane referred to this as well, saying she hears the public’s desire for accountability, and she feels the council should go slowly. She said, as did Williams, that it is unfortunate that awareness that “we’re smarter than we used to be” has not “trickled down” to the public. She cited such measures as the city manager’s oversight and weekly reports to the council, which keep the project under close scrutiny.

Williams called for a “clear, concise report on where things stand, and on lessons learned,” including all of the various elements that make the case for the gym.

“We also need to move forward with the survey of residents that we authorized more than a year ago” he said. The Mayor also mentioned this, saying she was working on compiling background information to include in a survey. The survey, she said, would be part of the periodic “satisfaction survey” the city regularly conducts. It would not be administered to every resident, but to a sample of the population. Does anyone besides Your Gilbert see a wedge there for whichever side loses the b . . . . er, community discussion?”

Williams noted that talks are upcoming with the new County Council about double-taxation, including the $300,000 we pay them for “few if any services” in return. He also said the city should explore the possibility of using facilities at Columbia Union and Montgomery Colleges. But, he said the city should scupper its current fund-raising efforts.

“We need to withdraw our requests for funding from the State and from the County, we need to work with the Hospital and the two Colleges. . ., we need to pursue fair rebates from the County. . ., we need to put together a comprehensive report on the community center so far, and we need to go forward with the community survey. These are the minimum that we need to do. I hope my colleagues on the Council will join me in these requests”

Meanwhile, for you Rent Stabilization fans, the council IS still working on that issue. They moved forward on an ordinance that would require full disclosure of city rent control laws to new buyers of rental properties.


- Gilbert

Posted by Granola Park at 05:39 PM | | Comments (0)

February 20, 2007

Glog, Glog! Two-fer on the Gym

Dear Readers,

Oh, you luckies! Here are TWO guest blog entries in one. Here you have even more opinions on Takoma Park’s Gymnasium controversy. The first is from Rueben Snipper, recently elected councilmember from Ward 5. The second is from Dan Robinson, a cvic and environmental activist of many years.

Enjoy! And, please leave your own comments!

- Gilbert

_________________________


Gym -- A bigger vision
by Reuben Snipper, Ward 5 Councilmember


As the new kid on the Council -- but not on the block -- I've waited a decent interval to comment on the discussion of the proposed gym. While a week as council member isn't much time, I have lived in Takoma Park for over 20 years. I want to offer some thoughts from people I talked to during my campaign.

Unlike the discussion on this list, folks that I talked to were in favor of a gym, but they envisioned not only a space for more sports activities, but saw many uses for a large space.

Think of this past weekend: the Green Building Conference brought out many local people and businesses. Most of the rooms I visited were packed. The Community Center rooms are designed for small events.

Takoma Park is full of people with knowledge and skills. We have artists, musicians, journalists, business people, people working at non-profits, teachers, scientists, politicians (sorry to bring that up), and many other people doing interesting work. With them, for example, we could have a conference for teens thinking of careers. We could have a conference of just the non-profits in Takoma Park. We could have a conference of people doing international work. We could have a local "battle of the bands." We could have a fair with local artists. We could have folk dancing, etc., etc. You get the idea.

If we had a large space, we would use it for events that build on the talents and skills of our neighbors; we would use it to learn from each other. To me, the Green Building Conference is just the start of what we could do with a large community space.

Of course, a gym isn't perfect for many of the above events, but it would be good enough. Sure, a gym would enable more sports activities, but it could be much more than that. As we do things together, we will be building the kind of close-knit community we keep talking about.

I think we need such a gym, but many others are not convinced. So what we need to move forward is a plan to decide. (Much of the material below is available already, but needs to be assembled.) From what I've heard, we need -- and others should add to this list:

-- Proposed uses. We need a list of the proposed uses of a gym, along with alternatives if we don't build one.

-- Lessons learned from the Community Center experience. We need a serious, complete accounting of that experience, including a realistic assessment of how to avoid the mistakes.

-- Designs. We need a range so we can see which features we REALLY want.

-- Cost/financing. We need a complete accounting of construction costs, including allowance for inflation and unexpected costs. We need a realistic plan for obtaining as much financing from the state, county, and other sources. We need staffing and operating costs.

-- Management of the project. If we decide to go forward, we need a plan for managing the project that accounts for the "lessons learned" from the Community Center experience. We will need an experienced construction project manager.

-- Public involvement. Finally, and perhaps most important, we need a public process. The City and Council need to pull together the materials above in an easily digestible form with executive summary, detailed tables, etc.; the public needs to read it and engage in deciding this issue.

I believe we have most of the above materials already, but they need to be assembled into a coherent report, with supporting detail. The public needs to review the report to identify missing pieces, etc.

Some have suggested we use a survey to gauge interest in a gym. As a professional statistician, I would never omit a survey. But I am concerned that without the above material -- read and discussed -- people will not be able to form a real opinion on the matter. Ten years from now, we want to look back and say we made the right decision.

Can we do this? I think so. Takoma Park is a city of thoughtful and knowledgeable people. I believe we can engage them in coming to a position we can agree on.

Reuben Snipper


____________________

Another Viewpoint
by Dan Robinson

Congratulations to Seth and Gilbert for reporting on and synthesizing the whole gym shebang.

I have a pretty long memory on all of this, having organized six ward-specific town meeting/focus groups on what citizens of TP wanted, way back in '97-98, as part of a council-mandated, staff-supported strategic planning effort that came to be called 'Takoma 2010'. I also organized a couple of networked community association/tenant group roundtables a few years before that. Let me go back and describe those two briefly, then add a couple of observations.


Several hundred people showed up at the town meeting/focus groups. Each councilperson had a chance to chat with his or her constituents. There was some reluctance on this score, but in the end all were good sports. At the focus groups we did a brainstorming effort, and people put little colored circles next to all items as 'votes'. I put all the ideas and votes into a database and put it on the web (that's my expertise). Believe it or not, all those responses and all that information is still available at this website - go and take a look at what people valued at that time. The SWOT column refers to a strategic planning approach. You'll get the picture.


The networked neighborhoods and tenant group meetings were very interesting. There was a certain amount of common ground, but by the third meeting the distrust and anger in the air between the homeowners and renters was palpable. There was no fourth meeting. The 2010 process begun later was in part an effort to bridge that gap in a different way and it worked. There was strong tenant representation from Lee Avenue residents and a good deal of tenant participation in the town meeting/focus groups. We went out of our way to make this happen.


Now come my opinions. The 2010 staff and citizen members had high hopes when our process was complete. Our report was presented to the Mayor and Council in 1998, and to our surprise the strategic planning initiative was promptly abandoned. Rick Finn had been appointed city manager and the 2010 support staff left or were fired as a cloak of secrecy dropped around the city administration. Many citizen committees were marginalized. Some citizen insiders, most importantly those on the Recreation Committee, hung in and gained the ear of Rick Finn, and the Community Center/Gym process was born.


The 2010 report mentioned a community center/gym only briefly (check the website), and in passing, yet the idea of a place for kids to hang out was there. Howard Kohn and the Recreation committee had a good deal of experience working with kids in the Soccer League and other sports-related efforts, and Howard became the carrier and facilitator for the center/gym charge.


Howard is a competitive guy, and has pushed hard over the years to see this dream come true. He has worked tirelessly to achieve his ends. I don't begrudge him the success he's had. For a while I engaged in debate with him and others on the Takoma listserve about the early promises and the cost overruns, but felt beaten down by him, former mayor Sharp and others as they pursued their goals and minimized the opposition.


I had a beef - that the Community Center/gym process had morphed into an exercise to rebuild the administration building and police digs. Though there was considerable space planned for community activities, it now appeared that there were to be entirely new and expanded offices for the administration and police. That wasn't what had been discussed or agreed to, and though it may be that staff and police needed more space, it felt like the wool was being pulled over the eyes of the public. I had heard reports of ill treatment of staff and some citizen committees (my committee was an example), and there were numerous rumors circulating that City Manager Finn was clamping down on information emanating from the City, and that departing employees were being forced to sign non-disclosure documents. There was substantial staff turnover, and the Mayor and Council appeared grim at meetings as they adamently supported the City Manager and as the cost of the Community Center doubled, then tripled, and the gym was dropped until a later phase. I wondered what had become of the notion that we, the citizens and council, could agree on what we wanted, then go after the funding, rather than going after funding and justifying the project as it progressed and grew.

I kept slogging along, co-founded Sustainable Takoma, co-chaired the City Manager Selection Committee and the TASDI committee, and have now nearly finished constructing a small office building near New Hampshire Avenue. I've gotten some distance from those times and frustrations and would just as soon leave these things in the past. However, I see the same homeowner/tenant issues coming up again with the gym construction.


Here are my suggestions - be clear and up-front that the gym would be for both lower-income and higher-income kids and adults. Show that it would be an asset in that regard, as well as something that would belong to the city. Do not fudge the numbers. Put this issue on the ballot as soon as possible (before November) to let the general citizenry weigh in. (Look at the numbers - 60 people showed up over two days in hearings, 285 signed a petition asking that this issue be on the ballot.) Then abide by what the voting members of our community say. Finally, move on to the more important issues that face our community, namely to find continuing ways to bridge that gap between property owners and renters, to take the County to task for short-changing us for decades, to get better control over the land within our own borders, and, most importantly, to start now (that means right away) to reduce our energy use and increase our reliance on renewable energy in substantial and continuing ways for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Dan Robinson

Posted by Granola Park at 07:07 PM | | Comments (0)

February 18, 2007

Forward March!


Dear Readers,

Cancel the funeral! The body is still twitching. In fact, it’s walking . . . slowly . . . forward . . . !

What does “forward” mean, Dear Readers? Takoma Park Mayor Kathy Porter assures us it is “NOT committing to build the gym, NOT committing to which option, simply committing to the next step.”

The next step is on the road to Annapolis, where the city will continue to seek up to 3 million dollars in state funding. Fund-seeking will continue in the county, as well.

Applying for funding does not commit the city to building the gym. Though it seems a bit cart-before-the-horsey, there is a good reason, say the Mayor and councilmembers savvy in the Ways of the State.

This year the state has a budget surplus and next year it will have a “structural budget deficit,” according to the Mayor. Your Gilbert has no idea how a structural budget deficit differs from a plain budget deficit, but we are a bit mystified how wise heads in matters economical can see a budget surplus on one hand, a budget deficit on the other hand, and not bring the two hands together, using the surplus to eliminate the deficit.

Regardless, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to piteously cry “ALMS! ALMS!” on the state house steps. The deadline to do so rapidly approaches. And that, Dear Readers, is why the city steps forward, even without having chosen a specific plan, budget, or even whether to build the gym at all.

This determination to keep marching came at the Feb. 12 city council meeting, a couple of days following two public “Should the City Build a Gymnasium.” workshops that were poorly attended. Of those few who showed up, most opposed the gym. So did the majority of those (70 in all) who e-mailed or phoned in their opinions.

As Councilmember Terry Seamens noted, however, this does not necessarily indicate a majority opinion. At past meetings many more people have shown up to support the gym, and the majority of his constituents want it to be built, he says. This is no surprise, he admits, as the gym site is in his ward.

Seamens has noted the strong opposition in other wards, particularly among homeowners who fear an increase in their city taxes to cover gym construction and operating costs. Such an increase would be likely, though, and adding to the city tax would be like poking a raw wound, as property taxes have recently gone up. Councilmember Joy Austin-Lane also noted that for the first time in history the city tax rate is higher than the county tax rate, so homeowners are a bit moody right now.

The Mayor speculated, however that the city will likely do what it has done in the past in such circumstances, which is to lower the city tax rate so home owners pay the same amount.

That’s not to say the city won’t still tack on the costs of the gym above that. The estimated amounts (here comes the eye-glazing bit) for the owner(s) of a home assessed at $400,000, are $25 per 1 million dollars for 20 years, and another $25 per 1 million in operating costs. How much of the construction costs would have to be assumed by the taxpayers depends on how much the city raises in grants from the state and county. Those grants usually require the city to match them, but a county grant could be used to match a state grant, for instance. So, if enough grant moneys are available there might be no taxpayer construction costs (unlikely), or taxpayers may have to pony up half the costs to match the grants (more likely).

Unglaze your eyes, Dear Readers! What this means is that if the taxpayers have to shoulder, say, half the gym building costs, which in the higher estimates ($8 million) would amount to $4 million, you homeowners would pay an approximately additional $200 yearly for 20 years, plus a bit more for operational costs - if Your Gilbert has done the math correctly which is not a common occurrence.

To varying degrees all the councilmembers voiced support for the gym,. Councilmember Clay came closest to outright opposition, but she made clear that she is only reluctantly reflecting the majority sentiment of her constituents. Personally, she wants to see the gym built, but may have to vote against her own wishes out of duty to the voters, she says.

Speaking of stepping, Dear Readers, have you ever waded barefoot through a muddy, rocky stream? That’s what discerning community needs is like on this gym matter. One bumps into an number of pro-gym rocks and says, “Ah, the community stream bed is rocky - we need the gym”, then one steps in an anti-gym slimy spot and thinks “oh, no, the community stream bed is mucky - we don’t need the gym!”.

But, how much of the stream bed is actually rocky, and how much mucky? We only know what we bump into, metaphorically. In reality, we only know who shows up at meetings or writes letters.

What we need, then, said Councilmember Seamens, is a needs assessment, and other councilmembers agree. This could be the famous survey that council critics say was promised but never delivered. Given the highly complicated nature of the issue, Your Gilbert doubts the survey could ever be written which was neither too simplistic nor which would paralyze the average citizen with too much detail. Furthermore, any survey at all would immediately be criticized by one side or the other as biased or inadequate.

The problem with this issue, as Your Gilbert sees it, is that it has a long, complicated history. Some of the gym critics are like people who walk into a movie at the last reel and sit there saying in a loud, irritating voice, “why did he do that?” “That’s dumb!”, What kind of a stupid ending is that? ‘Rosebud?’”

They don’t have the history, and they aren’t interested in learning or understanding it. They suggest, for example, just using existing gyms in the area. They are unaware that the city has already looked into the other gyms and found them heavily booked and under the control of the intractable Interagency Coordinating Board (IBC), an arm of the county school bureaucracy, which refuses to give priority use of fields and gyms to local needs, no matter how worthy.

Other critics are people who already have an ax to grind, and this just gives them a bigger grinding wheel. There is no convincing them, they see incompetence, duplicity, even evil in the events and on the council

Your Gilbert sees on the council a group of selfless people trying to do the right thing, and when it goes wrong, as these things do, trying to deal with it to the best of their ability. We have little patience with critics who insist, with the benefit of hindsight, that certain decisions or actions were obviously wrong. Nor can we stomache those who insist on viewing the current council actions through (indelicate word)-colored glasses.

That’s not to say that the heads making these decisions and actions rest easy, have no self-doubts, or are all in accord. That’s also not to say Your Gilbert supports building the gym - only that we support a thorough and calm process to make the decision.

The council is not exactly divided, but some councilmembers have qualms. Councilmember Joy Austin-Lane, for example is greatly concerned that the council has damaged its credibility and must avoid any appearance of repeating the sort of decision process that led to the orginal community center debacle. In particular, she was worried that, as with the community center, the city might commit to a gym at a certain cost, only to have the costs step up incrementally until they were high above the original. She urged the council to make sure the cost estimates were solid and, given past experience, to use the high end of the estimates, not the low one, when presenting the costs to the public.

Councilmember Seamens and Clay echoed this concern. Clay even promised to sit in a dunking booth in front of the completed gym if it ends up costing less than 8 million dollars. Your Gilbert noted that neither the Mayor nor any of the more sanguine councilmembers did not volunteer to sit in the dunking booth if the final costs were MORE than 8 million.

Clay also questioned the estimates for operating costs, which she felt were low and inadequate. They account for a part-time custodian and only one staff person on duty at any given time. Debra Haldeven, of the Recreation Department, defended this estimate, saying volunteers and other Rec. Dept. staff would also be on hand, but Clay was skeptical.

Councilmember Seamens’s worry was that they were missing potential downsides to the plan that would come back to bite them later. He was concerned about approaching the state for funds so precipitously. He may have been thinking about the rather abrupt reaction from the county, which when presented with the city’s funding request shot back some pointed questions: What is the total cost? How do you intend to finance the total cost? What is the schedule? When will the gym open? Will county residents pay the same fee as city residents?

Clay voiced the annoyance many felt over that last question, saying that if the county would hand over the money it owes Takoma Park due to double-taxation, the city would not have to go begging them for funds to build a gym.

Your Gilbert sincerely hopes the city will respond by saying that the county could chose whether to 1) give us our rebate or 2) repay us a few dollars at a time through a gym usage surcharge on non-city county residents.

Clay, Seamens, and Austin-Lane pushed for information to be made more readily available. For example, the question about use of existing gyms always comes up and it would be helpful to have information showing the ICB policy and the actual availability of local gyms. Much of the information exists, but not in one place.

Not only would this be helpful to the council but to the public. Public education is another step the council wants to make. Understanding the history and aims of the gym project will win more citizens over, they felt. As it stands there is an alarming polarization developing between homeowners and renters on this issue, the homeowners feeling that they are being required to subsdize a gym for renters. This only inflames those who feel they are already subsidizing renters through rent control.

The Mayor saw the path ahead as having “two tracks,” one is the fundraising effort, the other is public outreach. This will include making information available. It may also include some sort of needs assessment. How that will be accomplished is likely to be a source of controversy, no doubt one of many as the gym project lurches on.


- Gilbert

Posted by Granola Park at 09:00 AM | | Comments (1)

February 17, 2007

Glog - Report on Feb 12 council gym discussion

Glog - Report on Feb 12 council gym discussion

Dear Readers,

Your Gilbert is presenting guest blogger Seth Grimes’ report on the most recent Takoma Park City Council meeting. We will post our own report soon so you, Dear Readers, can have hours of fun playing Contrast and Compare!

- Gilbert

The gym decision, especially as relating to city finances and property taxes, is an important city issue. It is on a par with development (Old Takoma, New Hampshire Avenue, and Flower Avenue), with crime and public safety, and with health services, noting WAH's planned withdrawal from Takoma Park.

A Takoma Park City Council's February 12 work session discussed findings of last weekend's two gym forums and other expressions of public views. You can view the session on-line .

Staffer Suzanne Ludlow described the forums and the 70 e-mail messages and phone calls received prior to the council meeting. She expressed regret that only 16 residents attended the first session and 36 the second. She presented a compilation of questionnaire, e-mail, and phone findings. The vast majority were homeowner responses. "The demographic of the participants was not reflective of the Takoma Park community."

Ms Ludlow reported "There were more people registering opposition to the gym than there were supporters of the gym."

She did not provide broken-out numbers, which may have been in the council packet, but she did report the location views of 26 people who supported a gym in some form, suggesting 26 supporting views out of 70 e-mail messages and 52 program attendees overall.

Ms Ludlow reported that those who responded favor including restrooms and that staff recommends including an office and waiting area. One technical point on finances: the city would be required to put a 100% match of state bond funding, not a 50% match as was stated at the council meeting.

Community Center Liaison Committee Chair Howard Kohn then spoke. He addressed which gym option was most desirable in the committee's view and responded to questions about the earlier site-selection process. He did not acknowledge, nor of course respond to, the majority opposition expressed in the last week as reported by Ms Ludlow.

Mayor Kathy Porter noted that policy questions were not discussed at the workshops. She said that she got many questions about timing; she explained that timing is driven by the state budget cycle and that "building costs are only going to go up" and that "our chances of getting state money will be better this year than in future years."

Mayor Porter said she would ask the council to put together a "continued public participation process."

Council Member Terry Seamens (Ward 4) "disclosed" that he supports the gym and disagrees with the committee, that he wants to see the full facility. He has received phone calls and e-mail showing there are "a lot of other opinions in the city" although he has heard opposition to raising taxes,opposition to borrowing money, and questions whether we need a gym in addition to strong support from residents of his ward and others.

Mr. Seamens observed that as a community "we're not very integrated even if we're very diverse" and that the gym has become a divisive issue. "How can we do this in a way that builds the confidence in the community that we know what we're doing?" He suggested taking a step back to look at goals and how best to meet them in a "much more organized" approach to exploring alternatives and finances.

Council Member Joy Austin-Lane asked Howard Kohn if the CC Liaison Committee has considered the possibility of a referendum on the gym.[Sustainable Takoma obtained and presented to the council 285 signatures on a 2005 petition calling for a gym bonding referendum. See http://sustainabletakoma.org/NoBadBonds.html .] Mr. Kohn responded that "the idea has never come up."

Ms Austin-Lane observed that the city property-tax rate is now higher than the county's.

Council Member Doug Barry observed that "we as a council have perhaps failed to make this case as clearly as we need to make it" and he suggested attempting to quantify need. He observed that the community does not share the council's trust in city competency to conduct a project of this nature. And he discussed a third point, what we can afford,people's concerns about [other] unmet needs, about the need to step up pursuit of a tax-duplication rebate increase and other funding sources in Annapolis and at the county level.

Council Member Colleen Clay discussed city changes in the past year: concern about property taxes, a tremendous increase in the cost of utilities, a crime wave. She related, reluctantly given her personal support for a gym, that "by a more than 2 to 1 ratio, the people in my ward who responded to me have said they don't want to build a gymnasium in the city." The crux of the problem is lack of public trust. She restated this point 5-6 times. "Ultimately we could have a gymnasium, but not with the process we're going about right now."

Addressing the lack of public trust, Ms Clay recommended that "we need a written report to the community on what happened with the community center," also reporting on storm water issues, more precise cost numbers that provoke more confidence, a better alternatives analysis, a commitment to energy efficiency. She recommended conducting the survey on services[that the council voted in 2004] and putting the gym on the ballot.

Council Member Bruce Williams observed about the public comment opportunities that "from some of them there was overwhelming support and... from some of them there was overwhelming against." His recommendation focuses on pulling together information to make it easier to make the case. He reinforced views expressed by Mayor Porter, Howard Kohn, and others that now is the time to go forward with funding requests. He stated that the best, fairest, and cheapest way to proceed with the project will be to borrow.

Mr. Williams' prescription: to proceed with making the case presentation and pursuing funds. He seems clear in his mind that opposition can be sufficiently overcome by improved advocacy. He would consider a fall ballot referendum if there would be "a much tighter proposal to present."

Council Member Reuben Snipper related that in his recent campaign, people in his ward told him that the want a gym, an affordable gym. He would have the city use the coming weeks to get information out and continue trying to make the case.

There was much, much more in the course of the meeting, about use of county facilities, about the fire station, about facility and program management, about related issues such as expansion of Takoma Park Elementary School, and so on, but nothing revelatory.

Mayor Porter summed up by concluding council consensus to move forward with "the next step," that there should be a compilation and repackaging of explanatory information. She advocated "a more formal needs assessment." She acknowledged comments about lack of public confidence by expressing support our "new" city manager [Barb Matthews, who started herein July 2005.] She did not address steps to build confidence in council leadership and oversight.

After other discussion, there were questions for Ms Ludlow about the timing of state-funding requests. Balancing the city's having a relatively clear statement of funding needs is a concern that lack of community consensus could undercut legislative support for needed funding.

City Manager Barb Matthews proposed one financing option: to use Washington Adventist Hospital's pledged $150,000/year, five-year contribution for bond repayments, increasing the borrowing need but deferring the financial impact on the community.

Per Mayor Porter concluded that the city will in coming weeks 1) move forward with the funding requests and get information from the state how much could be expected from a bond bill; 2) pull together "making the case" information; and 3) create a public participation plan.

Ms Ludlow pressed for direction on state required financing documentation and a response to the county council's challenge to provide information on what would be built, when, how much it would cost, and use policy for county residents. In response, noting a $6 million commitment implied by the $3 million state bond bill's 100% matching requirement, Mayor Porter said we would proceed with this "funding fiction." We would go to the county with a specific funding request once we learn how much we can expect from the state.

Seth Grimes

Posted by Granola Park at 07:44 PM |

February 13, 2007

Fiscal Funnies

Dear Readers,

This recently in from Ward 2 Takoma Park City Councilmember Colleen Clay, regarding our brilliant “Snappy New Year” post in which we said “Councilmember Clay had arrived at the center to use a room she had booked to celebrate her child’s birthday, to find it had been double-booked.”

Your Gilbert was explaining the council’s concern that the new community center is not adequately staffed. “The solution, they agreed, . . . is that more funding is needed. This is a difficult thing for fiscal-conservatives such as Clay to advocate, yet the need is obviously there.”

Over to you, councilmember!


First, it is still so funny that you think I'm a fiscal conservative, but aside from that, I didn't discover the rec. center was double booked when I got there, I discovered it the week prior and made adjustments. What I discovered when I got there is that there was no supervisor on site, the staff were not all capable of self-supervision, and no one had a key to the rooms. I have many other experiences with the rec. department that led me to the conclusion they need more supervision, but in part, I didn't want to just dump on them in public. My goal, contrary to what you seem to believe, is not to slash the city budget, but to provide quality services. In this instance, that means spending more money on staff.

By the way, this does not make me a tax and spend liberal either.

Colleen


Your Gilbert is pleased that the counmember finds us "so funny". We do try to amuse.

Fortunately for Ms. Clay, Your Gilbert is not like some media riffraff - the sort who play fast and loose with the facts. We refer, of course, to a recent Gazette newspaper article intimating that the city will have to pay for community center contractors’ errors. City Manager Barbara Matthews took the Gazette to task for this at the council meeting and in a letter to the paper. The letter can be downloaded in pdf form on the city’s web site. Ms Mattew in her best administrativeese politely but firmly corrects the “mistaken impression” created by the article. One can hardly see the place where she whited-out “you muckraking morons!”

Could Councilmember Clay be emulating the city manager by writing to the offending publication (us)? Is granolapark guilty of inaccuracy when it says the councilmember discovered the doublebooking when she arrived for the event, rather than the week prior? A review of the tape shows the councilmember describing herself arriving to find find the reserved room locked and getting an “inside” person to open the door for herself AND “the other person who was there for their birthday party.” There is a reference at another point in the conversation to a “double booking.” These statements seem to indicate that double booking was discovered on the day,.

Did granolapark misrepresent the concerns of the council on Jan 8? Your Gilbert objectively and magnanimously observes that, though the intent was to report that the main concern of Councilmember Clay and other councilmembers was inadequate staffing, the post is not clear enough about that, and implies that problems with doublebooking are the main concern. This is not the case. A slight edit to the post will make this clearer.

These details aside, the important thing is that Councilmember Clay raised the subject of community center understaffing at the January 8 meeting, and that led to a long one-agenda-item city council meeting Feb. 8th. At that meeting the staff reported to the council about the community center activities and problems including understaffing and the overly complex room-rental policy.

As a result an increase in community center staff funding is now in the works, and councilmember Clay, belying any impression that certain media types may have had that she is a fiscal conservative, has for the moment embraced her fiscally irresponsible side. There are many things worse than being called a “fiscal conservative,” but if the councilmember insists, we could henceforth refer to her as a “fiscal schizophrenic,” perhaps, or “fiscal fantacist!”.

But, seriously, “fiscal conservative” does not mean someone who wants to “slash the city budget,” as Councilmember Clay seems to think Former Councilmember Marc Elrich was fiscally conservative, for example, by watching every penny, demanding the best value for money spent, and holding the line against new spending. This is not the same as slashing the city budget or city services.

- Gilbert

Posted by Granola Park at 08:46 PM | | Comments (1)

February 12, 2007

Glog - Gym Workout

Dear Readers,

"Glog" is, of corse, "guest blog." Guest blogger Seth Grimes, city resident, civic involvementisté (see below*), and former candidate for mayor, reports on this weekend’s public workshops held by the city entitled “Should the City Build a Gymnasium.”

- Gilbert


I attended today's (Sunday Feb. 11) city gym forum. I'd estimate turnout at 30 not counting officials. A friend says that 15 people attended yesterday. (I'll paste in my friend's report farther down in this message.) This is low turnout given a citywide mailing.

Sentiment expressed today was mostly against building a gym. A Sycamore Avenue resident said that she had been talking to her neighbors about the gym and they have "expressed no support whatsoever."

But there was more.

One resident blasted the city for not including operating costs in the estimates. They had to be asked about this at the forum; they didn't volunteer the omission. City staffer Suzanne Ludlow stated that the city is working on these figures. The resident singled out Mayor Porter as having broken a promise to be clear and complete on costs in the wake of the bad Community Center construction experience.

The city stated, in this case without prompting, that none of the estimates include $500,000 - $800,000 in design & engineering costs. So the $5.5-$8 million costs presented by the city were knowingly 10% underestimated. And the costs for the newly presented options, $3.2-$3.9 million, are similarly knowingly underestimated.

Other residents, three I think, stated that the city had not proved demand for a gym. Ms Ludlow declined to take on this topic when it was raised by the first speaker, saying that the concern of the forums would be eliciting individual attendees' views. And the moderator stated that questions should be restricted to requests for clarification, not statements of opinion. The city said that opinions should be expressed in the questionnaires distributed although some folks chose to offer opinions at the forum regardless.

I noted that the questionnaire, in asking what city borrowing individuals would support, did not offer a "no borrowing" option. The lowest category was $1-$2 million. Ms Ludlow committed to modifying the questionnaire to include a "no borrowing" response if it is used again.

A couple of attendees asked that recurring question, what about using county facilities including at the local schools? One stated that we should get state and county assistance in providing community’s preference in using county facilities within their borders.

One resident said that the city's $800,000 estimate for a green roof is about ten times the cost other cities have reported in studies he has seen.

I did not hear a single clear, unequivocal expression of support. My own qualified support -- we must demonstrate majority resident support and commit to green building per city guidelines and fund the gym without borrowing -- was perhaps the most positive expressed in favor of the gym.

To be fair, some supporters likely didn't get up to speak or restricted their questions to technical points.

Mayor Porter and Councilmembers Clay, Seamens, and Williams attended. Councilmember Austin-Lane came toward the end, and Councilmember-elect Reuben Snipper was there. So was State Delegate Heather Mizeur and former Councilmember Carol Stewart.

City Manager Barbara Matthews, Recreation Director Debra Haiduven, and Community and Government Liaison Suzanne Ludlow represented the city.

And Saturday's forum? Here's what my friend reported --

“I went to the workshop today at the Grace church. There were 28 people there, 13 of which were City Council members or City staff. They asked good questions, including was there a demonstrated need for a gym (no; rec. dept. staff brainstormed on uses), how much has it cost the City to rent gyms and was that reimbursed by users (don't know, it cost $18K/yr for gym and other rec. space, but now have the Comm. Ctr. for other rec space, no answer re whether user fees paid any of that). They said there would be additional costs of 500-800 K for design and engineering if they build. One person noted that the City provides recreation now for many Silver Spring children.

“The folks I spoke to (not City staff or Council) all seemed opposed. One thought it would be nice but we can't afford it.

“I wouldn't mind a gym if we had demonstrated need, demonstrated ability to build buildings well, and the resources to do so. Even with the money we have, we have greater need. We haven't even finished the Comm. Ctr.. On my questionnaire, I said we should use our staff time to focus on redeveloping run down areas of NH Ave.

“The council is slated to resume their discussion at tomorrow evening's meeting.”

Seth



So, Dear Readers,

After seeing this report, the question on Your Gilbert's mind is whether the Mayor and those councilmembers who have pledged to Build the Gym No Matter What, will snatch this opportunity to abandon the sinking ship. The apparent dampening of citiizen interest in the project could get them off the hook.

- Gilbert


*Guest blogger Seth Grimes is: President of the Old Town Residents' Association and of Safe Takoma, a cross-jurisdictional crime-prevention initiative. Member of the City of Takoma Park's Health Services Impact committee and of the Economic Restructuring Committee of the Old Takoma Main Street Program. Former member of the city Resident's Committee on Tax and Services Duplication Issues (TASDI) and City Manager Selection Committee and 2005 mayoral candidate. And board member and co-founder of Sustainable Takoma, a citizens advocacy group.

Posted by Granola Park at 04:35 AM | | Comments (0)