Council Comes to Terms with Colossal Failure of Past Councils – There were two things on Tuesday night that the council skirted cautiously around. The first was that they did not put the blame for the debacle squarely on the shoulders of their predecessors, but they certainly hinted at it more than once.
The second was that, while they mentioned revenue options, they clearly wished to avoid a full discussion until after the March election. After all, residents have already agreed to pay $600 per year for school parcel taxes, and they are being asked to increase their water rates by perhaps more than $1000 per year over the next five years, so it is understandable that the council would be a bit skittish about biting off more.
But mostly, they were stunned. Stunned at the magnitude of the numbers presented by staff and consultants.
“When I saw this, I was quite surprised at the magnitude of the payments that’s required to stay current,” Councilmember Brett Lee said. “I must admit I was surprised and also saddened by it. We come to this job and we know we have to make hard decisions and I was thinking we would get the labor in order, we’re going to do certain things and then it’s the nice time when we get to make the parks nice and keep the pools open longer and this is like a bucket of cold water.”
“But it’s the reality that we’re faced with,” he said.
He complimented his colleagues who were on the council back in 2011 for making the budget cuts that would have funded at least some of these infrastructure improvements.
“I was really surprised at the magnitude difference,” Councilmember Lee continued. “I was thinking a $2 to $3 million investment would be sufficient… I’m troubled (and not because I disagree with it) with this $15 million front loaded cost coming out of the gate and obviously we’re going to have to find out what we can come up with.”
“By paying up front, we’ll obviously save our community a lot of money,” Councilmember Lee said.
As the consultants walked the council through the numbers, they showed three graphics that demonstrated the pavement index at three levels of funding.
First, was the current rate of funding – $1 million per year.
The second is at $8 million of funding per year.
The third was at a huge initial expenditure in the first five years and then $7 million in funding each year to maintain the current backlog.
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk agreed “about how sobering it is.”
He noted the June 2011 3-2 budget vote that Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson and he took.
“We knew at the time it was a very difficult vote to basically move $1 million into the roads and $200,000 into the bike paths,” he said. “That was a difficult vote and we knew at the time… that that really wasn’t going to solve the problem by any means.”
“But seeing this report shows you how really a drop in the bucket it really is,” he said. “It’s very daunting and sobering to realize and think about where we’re going to find this $150 million.”
Mayor Pro Tem Wolk would add, “A bandaid solution is just not viable. The roads only get more expensive.”
“Infrastructure is so critical to our community, this is just something that we are going to have to take,” he said. “The way we’re proceeding, it’s clear it’s not viable.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs said, “Sobering I think is the key in this. It seems fairly daunting certainly. We’ve risen to challenges before in this community and I think we will continue to, particularly with innovative solutions.”
“It’s a big number,” he said, “either initially or ongoing.”
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson added, “We’ve taken care of a lot of big things and trying to fix them and get caught up in the last couple of years and yet we were about to see the light at the end of the tunnel and now there’s this.”
“Two years ago when we put the $2.5 million aside,” she said, “you did a good job Bob (Clarke) of showing where the unfunded liabilities were at, how big the backlog was, and as hard as the vote was, I think also just in good conscience it was hard to just sit there and not put some good money in there.”
It is not that funding alternatives were off the table. In the discussion that will take place a few months from now, Councilmember Rochelle Swanson asked for the staff to bring forward funding alternatives.
She asked council to looking into revenue funding options or “other potential options. I’m not advocating or having any preference on any of these, obviously I would like to be something else but I want to be realistic. And also from existing revenue, if I were to take it out of existing revenue, I would like some ideas of how but also where from.”
The discussion of funding was agendized for a future agenda for discussion of all of the options.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton pointed out, “One of the things we have to think about is our assets in the bank are getting a whole .3 percent interest right now whereas our roads are deteriorating at practically a double-digit inflation rate. It’s certainly one of those areas, depending on what you’re looking at, where certainly some debt financing saves us a ton of money in the long run.”
Councilmember Frerichs also pushed for a more systemic approach.
“I do find it frustrating that we consistently set up these processes and then we have the ‘one-offs’ – so we’re setting up this process where we’re supposed to be evaluating everything and then we’re going to go ahead with a project when we haven’t gone through the rest of the official process,” he said noting “The same thing has recently happened with the Downtown Parking Task Force. We’ve added additional bike parking spaces in the downtown, taking away street parking spaces, while we have this ongoing process with the Downtown Parking Task Force. I’m not sure why that continues to happen, but it doesn’t seem right.”
He said this comes down to the budgeting issues. “I hope we’re not just seeing this in the vacuum like we see the others. There are these issues of infrastructure needs and also funding priorities throughout this community.”
He said it is not just a few things – there is a whole process and the public needs to be engaged in the process. During past years, however, “it has been like pulling teeth to get the public engaged in the process.”
Rochelle Swanson asked another critical question, “We have a whole other giant liability, on our sidewalks, is that fair?”
Acting Public Works Director Bob Clarke responded, “They’re in need of improvement as well.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Does anyone else smell another parcel tax in our future?
Parcel tax is one possibility, but probably not the most likely one.
“The second was that while they mentioned revenue options, they clear wished to avoid a full discussion until after the March election. After all, residents have already agreed….”
Speaking of “speaking to the motivation,” maybe you’re right. But, I don’t see anything to support that the council decided to hold back discussion because of concerns that more talk might negatively influence the upcoming election.
Sounds more like the stunning nature of the problem just left them with not much to say until the staff answers some fundamental questions about the street needs and financing prospects. And, getting the chance to look at all of the city’s expensive issues so priorities can be set before committing big bucks to the one that’s popped up seems like a good concept.
Considering the overwhelming costs of any alternative presented, are we willing to live with a lower standard for our streets? I’ve lived places that got along with lower quality streets and only a minimum of grumbling.
Too bad we didn’t give more concern to this “hidden” issue when you were hollering years ago…and earlier. Another Vanguard coup, I’d say.
It may be unreasonable to generalize from my personal experience, but I believe that many have been inclined to treat our relationship to the city as I have. While busy with career building and child raising, I was basically asleep behind the wheel as far as city issues were concerned. I paid attention at election times, but clearly quite superficially. I was very happy to benefit from the amenities offered by our lovely little town and university, but quite frankly, didn’t give too much thought about how they were being paid for. I have never minded paying taxes feeling that this is part of the cost of choosing to live within a society. What I did not realize was just how much money was being used….or not used… to pay for the things that I pretty much took for granted ( streets, bike paths, green belts, parks, water, open space…..).
Well now, for better or worse, I am a grown up and its time to join in the discussion, give serious consideration to both my personal values, advantages and responsibilities both to myself, my children, my community and help our city leaders, who I helped to elect to make the difficult calls. Just as I am sure that our current city council members wish that previous councils had taken on these issues more responsibly, I wish that I had taken my own civic duties more seriously and acted more responsibly. I didn’t, I can’t change that, but I can step up and play a constructive role now. I would like to encourage anyone who is currently patterning their life the way I did, to consider a more active approach now.
I am sure this was an independent silo or grant, but remember the ‘designer sidewalks’ project in downtown a few summers ago….huge cost for those bulb outs, etc. I think our system of silo funding is part of the problem. How many roads could have been repaired with that money?So rather than think of what should have been done, let’s use this knowledge going forward. I like Lucas’ systematic prioritization comment.
In recent years about $10 million annually was redirected from property taxes to the Redevelopment Agency. Which, SODA, is what paid for those designer sidewalks. Some of the funding reverts to the state and school district etc.; Rich Rifkin provided a good breakdown of the funds at one point. But a significant percentage of it goes back into the general fund. The RDA was diverting property tax funds from other parts of town to fund special projects in the downtown.
When the RDA’s were dissolved, the city encumbered a big chunk of the remaining/future money. As far as I know, it is sitting idle while the city pays interest on the borrowing costs.
yes, could that $$ be used for roads, Don? Sounds like a better use for it than paying interest?!
How far back have we been deferring maintenance?
SODA: to be more specific, here is what the city did per the Vanguard Feb. 25 2011:
“On Tuesday, the City of Davis, as many jurisdictions have done, rushed to encumber as many redevelopment projects as they could, voting to issue four million dollars worth of taxable and twelve million dollars worth of tax-exempt bonds.
The action added about one million dollars to the current debt service obligation of 600 thousand dollars.”
I would have a couple of questions for city staff when it comes to assessing the funding for these repairs.
According to Rich Rifkin’s column on the RDA topic, Redevelopment Agency Is Good For Davis [Sept. 13 2011], $2.61 million dollars a year of the money that was going to the RDA would now be going to the General Fund. I realize numbers change with changing property assessments. But it seems that the city’s revenues should reflect an increase in income from property taxes since RDA’s were dissolved. Is this the case?
If so, the council could consider that money to be available for road repairs.
How is the money that the council rushed to borrow earlier in 2011 encumbered? Are there specific projects for which that money is set aside, and are there any legal constraints on the use of it? It appears to be $16 – 18 million for which bonds have been issued.
My guess is that city residents would support using those funds for road repair, probably as a higher priority than a downtown parking structure. Much as I’d like to see the parking problem resolved, that issue seems to have disappeared into the netherworld of ‘further study’. Which means the funds are sitting idle, costing taxpayers money.
So as to the question of where the money is going to come from for deferred maintenance, I would say that at least some of it is already there.
And this CC is working so hard to suck how many hundreds of millions of dollars out of the community, dollars that could be used to fix our roads?
Pay your property taxes, Mike.
thx Don, yes I remember the night the CC chose to listen to their consultant and get in under the wire for borrowing the money which they hoped could save their RDA. Hindsight is always better and I don’t blame them for taking the advice but remember thinking aren’t you rushing this. It was indeed rushed as Jerry Brown was making RDA rumblings.
but NOW, as I questioned and you seem to be agreeing, perhaps we could put that money to good use. Sounds more needed than the Embassy Suites, or more designer sidewalks. 🙂
I remember there was substantial debate every time an RDA proposal was advanced and that naysayers were brushed off. “it’s not general fund money….it comes from another pocket…” (It’s free money! Forget about how low-priority the “improvement.”)
In hindsight, I’m wondering what’s funding “The Projects” or “The Great Wall of Davis” now under construction, the ones you’ve asked about in the [i]Vanguard[/i] from time to time. I think I read that the $1-million loan giveaway to Hanlees may have fallen through–is that money still requiring interest payments?
Rifkin’s research usually is right. If so, pour all this money into the general fund to finance the most critical items facing us.
[quote]And this CC is working so hard to suck how many hundreds of millions of dollars out of the community, dollars that could be used to fix our roads? [/quote]
Doesn’t equate, Mike. There is no greater funding of road improvements if the water project doesn’t happen. Road repair is paid for by tax revenue (including property taxes) and other income that contribute to the general fund. And you are suing the City and hoping for a settlement…paid for by the general fund…
Ryan: when the City unnecessarily pulls hundreds of millions out of the personal and business accounts of Davis residents and ratepayers, that means they have less discretionary money for paying for other things, such as … road maintenance, downtown shopping, movies, etc. It’s a global thing.
Prop 218 sets for legal standards that have to be followed by the City, and after getting nowhere with the City, we are asking a neutral forum to evaluate the water rates charged, and how the CIty handles its water accounting. It’s not that complicated, or even necessarily negative. It’s too bad we have to pursue the case, but that’s the way it is for now.
Mike, so that’s your argument against rising school taxes too? Should we now let school taxes expire so we can increase taxes to repair roads?
Since voting No on Measure I will not provide more money that can be used to repair roads, your argument is to continue with an unsustainable water system and deteriorating water quality so people can go shopping and see a movie?
Mike, road repairs are paid out of the general fund. Your lawsuit threatens the general fund, which is really stupid. The only way we can increase the general fund is to tax ourselves (i.e. parks taxes, public safety taxes, etc.) or make sure that everyone is properly paying their property taxes.
medwoman wrote:
> It may be unreasonable to generalize from my
> personal experience, but I believe that many
> have been inclined to treat our relationship
> to the city as I have. While busy with career
> building and child raising, I was basically
> asleep behind the wheel as far as city issues
> were concerned.
I think that it is great the medwoman and others are starting to pay attention to what the city has been doing, but it is sad to that that probably less than 1% of the residents of Davis could name our city council members and way less than 1% have any idea what is going on.
I have seen time and time again that elected city and school officials just ignore capital issues and for the most part just refuse to reserve for the capital expenses we know are coming (does anyone think that roofs, parking lots and road surfaces last forever?).
I don’t see any way to change the current system where money is spent on other things until the city or school district has to pass an “emergency” parcel taxes to come up with the money (no one ever got re-elected cutting teacher salaries to fund a school building reserve or cutting firefighter salaries to fund a road reserve).
Ryan, as always, thanks for your comments. I take a macroscopic view of things, and the water project and rate need more careful public scrutiny. It’s all for the public good. We have already saved over $135 million in ratepayer money, and so why do you care if I am risking my time to ask for even closer study by the court system?
At the end of the day, the rate system will be stronger and more accepted by the public once the court issues its stamp of approval on a system, whatever it turns out to be.
We have to pay water service bills; let’s just make sure we are doing it pursuant to law.
Today’s Op Ed piece by the Loge Williams team attacked me for questionning their rate structure. I have some questions about it, and I think a fair judicial review is in order, and actually, if you just think about it for a moment, the court’s good rate seal of approval gives Williams and Loge something very valuable. So the case is not a bad thing, and in fact, is going to be helpful in making sure that City of Davis rate policy conforms to law and fairly treats all concerned.
Williams and Loge get all that …. without having to pay for it? What a great deal!
So they should stop pretending they have coal in their stocking, when in fact there will be some good treats when we are done in the court system.
For this issue, what I want to see is a picture of a road condition that allows me to associate it to the Pavement Condition Index, and the breakdown of the costs for each repair type.
That way when I go around town, I can see, “Ah! that’s a pothole, and it will cost $X to fix. That’s a crack and it will cost $Y to fix.”
I think that level of detail is important because it will let us know if the costs are inflated:
[i]”That’s a pothole, and it will cost the City $X to fix, while I know that it should only cost $Y to fix. Someone is making a killing from this!”[/i]
Or that the City is being exceptionally efficient:
[i]That pothole will cost the City $X to fix. If I were to find someone to fix it myself, it will cost me $Y. $X is much cheaper than $Y because the City gets to fix a lot of them at once and be efficient. I wish that I could ask the City to fix the pothole on my driveway while they are at it. I will pay the City $Z, which is more than what I would have paid, and more than what the City would pay. It will be good for both of us.”[/i]
Edgar: really good idea: photos and standards!
I suggest you drive along B St, north of CIty Hall. It is beyond terrible …
The City could use resident labor, and highlight a web site for reporting bad road conditions. Many now have a cell camera, and can easily email their photos and complaints.
email the city at: “fixthedangedpotholes@cityofdavis.org” or something?
Then, the Davis Enterprise and the Davis Vanguard could post the worst of the worst, and keep bugging the city until fixed?
There’s a “blow the whistle” column in the SF Chronicle that lists public government issues, and keeps after the govts until they are fixed.
David: that side column would be a great read for all of us! Pick 10 issues, and keep highlighting and banging away at them until the City or County or DA fixes the problem? It’s a public accountability thing.
I see you’re commenting again, Michael, and hoping you’ll respond about your comments/tactics (ninth request):
“MH: But, why do you say the things you do? For example, you still haven’t answered this old question: ‘Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that: ‘We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue’. ??????”
And, (since John Munn doesn’t respond):
“1.) Why did you file your lawsuit now rather than after the measure has been resolved? 2.) Who is in the “Yolo Ratepayers” organization and what is its purpose? 3.) Who is financing the suit? and 4) Will the new group be attempting to influence voting on the election?”
Edgar wrote:
> I want to see is a picture of a road condition
> that allows me to associate it to the Pavement
> Condition Index, and the breakdown of the costs
> for each repair type.
You will never get this since the only way big contractors are able to not only make millions in profit but kick back millions in “bribes” (also known as perfectly legal campaign contributions even when we have no idea who is giving the money, what super PACs are getting the money and what the Super PACs are doing with the money)…
P.S. I talked to a guy who called a Bay Area Concrete company a few years back when they were replacing a lot of sidewalks and curbs in Central Davis thinking he could get a deal on a small job since the guys (and trucks and tools) were all in front of his house already. He got a quote and said that it was 300% higher than what he ended up paying a local company out of Woodland. Is there any way that a normal taxpayer can take a look at what the city pays outside contractors for individual street and sidewalk repair projects?
The part that affect me the most is 8th street at the railroad crossing. That part is bumpy. But it doesn’t look like the asphalt is damaged, but it wasn’t done well.
I don’t know how road fixing works. I suppose once the City has collected enough fixes that require the same kind of equipment, the City would fix all of them at once.
Does the City own the roadwork equipment? Are they normally being used or being idle? Do the equipment deteriorate over time or per use?
* * *
Re: Michael
I think you should answer the questions JustSaying has been posting. I don’t think I even know the context of the first batch of questions. I have been to a similar situation where someone would switch subject, and the only method I know is to repeat the same questions every time like what JustSaying is doing.
I suppose I am trying to tell JustSaying that he is not being annoying. I wouldn’t mind if I see this every time. I got banned from another forum doing this but sometimes this is the only way left. When I was doing that, I wished that someone would do it for me when I was not there.
Re: JustSaying
The next time you re-post the questions, could you also post the link to the context of the questions?
[quote]it has been like pulling teeth to get the public engaged in the process.[/quote]
Davis Barnraising… crowdourcing coming soon to a city near you. While this forthcoming venture might not be able to address the roads issue specifically, we hope it will indeed engage the public in a significant way. More to come in the next few months 🙂
Re: SouthofDavis
It seems that whichever city official who does not demand pictures and price tags for each picture is an official who has taken “bribes”. This would make it hack of easy to decide who not to re-elect, because a city official that advocates for the people would have no reason not to demand such things.
It is for protecting the people and for protecting themselves against accusation.
Consultant: “It will cost $X to fix this.”
Council Member: “This is a lot of money. What exactly are we fixing? May I see a picture?”
Consultant: “This is the picture.”
Council Member: “Thank you, I will ask the public whether this price is acceptable to fix this issue. Maybe we know how to do it cheaper and promote local businesses at the same time.”
City management: I’m not sure I’d blame previous CC’s so much as
prior city managers for neglecting oversight of roads and whatever else.
[quote]Does anyone else smell another parcel tax in our future?[/quote]
In today’s Enterprise there is a story about this problem and Rochelle Swanson suggested the city should consider special taxes, perhaps a sales tax increase or a parcel tax.
And speaking of more taxes coming down the pipeline. To cover the $1.5-2.5 million structural deficit in the schools, Bruce Colby tossed out the option of increasing parcel tax revenues slightly through a annual adjustment for inflation.
River water tax, waste treatment facility tax, schools parcel tax increase, Roads parcel tax. And it is only February!! I hate to imagine what the list will be by this time next year.
Edgar, I’m hoping that we’ll get answers this time and won’t need to repost. Michael knows the context (story announcing the suit when he said it has nothing to do with the measure and an exchange before that when he claimed that the river water is too polluted for our system). Good point, though, and I’ll do better in the future.
With respect to your concerns about bribed council members: Don’t you think that staff, rather than elected officials, deal with such contracts? I think we depend on the city manager, city attorney, contracting staff and, possibly, the county grand jury to keep our bidding system honorable. If we’re overpaying, I’d guess it’s due to sloppy work rather than graft and corruption.
Re:
So when if a city pays 300% more to fix something than normal, what is the role of council member? At what stage should they catch this, and how?
Time to have some creative, outside-the-box thinking:
The roads of City A are deteriorating. The City has been putting off maintenance to deal with more urgent matters, and is saddened by the recent assessment that it would now require $7 million each year to fix maintain the roads. That amount of money is not in the revenue, the City is considering an increase in, but it is well aware that it has just raised tax for another project while the economy is not particularly good. City A thinks that it is a stretch to ask for another tax increase. Uncertain what to do, City A asks City B:
City A: “How do you keep your city so nice and keep everyone happy?”
City B: “What do you mean? Wouldn’t you feel happy when you do a good job?”
City A: “Yes, but how do you get your people to pay for it?”
City B: “Why wouldn’t they? It is [i]their[/i] road. If you see a pothole, wouldn’t you want to fix it?”
City A: “Do you mean ‘wouldn’t they want to [i]see[/i] it fixed?'”
City B: “Hmm… What is the difference? If they want to see it fixed, then they have to do it. If they don’t do it how does it happen?”
City A: “They expect the city to fix it.”
City B: “Isn’t the city and the people the same thing?”
City A: “Don’t you need to convince the people what is good for them? So that they won’t focus on short-term things and look out for the long-term hazards?”
City B: “Different people have different priorities, how do you convince everyone to have the same priorities?”
City A: “That’s what I am asking, how do you do it?”
City B: “But we didn’t.”
City A: “Then how do you get everything fixed?”
City B: “We just let people work on what they think is their first priorities and help one another out.”
City A: “Then what does the city do?”
City B: “The city coordinates the people who have the same priorities and let them work together, and tell everyone what each group is working on so that people don’t come into conflict.”
City A: “If you do that, wouldn’t you end up with the wealthy part of the city well-maintained, while the poor part of the city deteriorate into a slum?”
City B: “Well, if there is a poor part of the city, their priorities is probably not the roads but their jobs and careers. So that part of the city will work on that as first priority. When the priorities are solved one by one, at some point the city become synchronized and everyone share the same priorities.”
City A: “So you mean that if the people resists, they have some other priorities that I don’t know about.”
City B: “That’s possible.”
City A: “But how do I know what their priorities are?”
City B: “Why wouldn’t they tell you themselves? When people need help they ask for it. Don’t they feel that the city helps them?”
City A: “The city helps them, but many of them think otherwise. We often come to these tough decisions where it is bound to have some people who feel that they are not served.”
City B: “That is unfortunate. How do you make it up to them?”
City A: “Make it up?”
City B: “When you make a decision that hurts someone, don’t you make it up to them?”
City A: “We kind of ignore them.”
City B: “I think that is why they don’t tell you want their priorities are, because they are the minority and will be ignored.”
[quote]So the case is not a bad thing, and in fact, is going to be helpful in making sure that City of Davis rate policy conforms to law and fairly treats all concerned.
Williams and Loge get all that …. without having to pay for it? What a great deal!
So they should stop pretending they have coal in their stocking, when in fact there will be some good treats when we are done in the court system.[/quote]
Cute spin Michael. And maybe, given that you are a lawyer, and have made your living and devoted your life to an adversarial way of seeing the world since that is how we deal with legal issues in this country, just maybe you even believe it. But some of us do not believe that every difference of opinion of approach to public issues needs to be taken to court. Some of us believe that it is even better to work things out together instead of obstructing, threatening and suing. Some of us don’t see delay, court costs, lawyers fees ( yes, I do realize it is in your financial best interest to keep litigating, unless of course all of this is being done pro bono by both sides ) as an optimal way to proceed. And I certainly do not see it as in the interest of the less affluent members of our community. While this may indeed be “without having to pay for it” for Williams and Loge,
it is most certainly not “without having to pay for it” for the rest of us.
So for those who distrust all government, and hate to pay taxes, how do you feel about frivolous lawsuits that the evil entity “the city” has to pay to defend against……using whose money ultimately ?
It has already been alluded to that the price tags for these maintenance and repairs are grossly inflated. I share that opinion. Instead of believing what has been reported in those graphs we need to know why the numbers given are reasonable. Because I think the only thing they are in line with is what has become the customary overpaying for services by public entities.
The other problem is we get these pet projects from time to time, like the projecting curbs (great example of a stupid dangerous thing), also I am sure at these ridiculous prices.
“The other problem is we get these pet projects from time to time, like the projecting curbs (great example of a stupid dangerous thing), also I am sure at these ridiculous prices.”
I want to address this point because as I understand it, those sidewalk features are actually safety features. In addition they are either grant funded or essentially ADA compliance features for when there are upgrades to buildings and sidewalks. For instance, here on F St when Hallmark remodeled their building, they upgraded the sidewalk which I’m sure was a required package deal.
I admit, I do not know how the projecting crosswalks were paid for. Upgrading the sidewalk with the latest ramp design is one thing and is required as part of remodeling as you said, but those projections are something else. They are all over downtown and also along East 8th St. They protect peds a little longer as they try to cross, but they are an absolute hazard for bikes. One is riding along and all of a sudden there is this projecting curb.
Another parking structure sure is something we don’t need, I wonder how much more will be spent studying that, and if we will end up building one with $$ we don’t have. But my other main point is the prices for these road and other public projects are inflated to the point of corruption. And what roads and the like are upgraded should be very carefully prioritized by need.
There is something I don’t understand about how the City works.
When the City has an idea about a change, when does the City check if the people wants the change before committing resources to investigate or plan the change?
Does the City actively seek people who might disagree, or does the City rely on us to watch the decisions they make and protest if we disagree?
Edgar, every major issue is a long slow process so as long as one is paying attention to what is being discussed by the City Council, one has plenty of time to weigh in on issues. Easier said than done becasue life is busy, but definitely doable. However, some people seem to have a lot more power than the rest of us on what decisions are made.