HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2017 Item 1, Schmidt (transmitted to Council prior to meeting and to Clerk following meeting)
• A small vocal group came out of nowhere and made off with these funds. Christianson
voiced this strongly: “I think it’s really important to remember that this was a small group
that was asking for that out of, completely out of context. . . And that’s why I . . . felt it
was a response to a small, vocal very dedicated group that had basically stood up and
asked for it and nobody had any notice. . . I don’t feel a lot of loyalty to that decision.”
There are a number of factual problems here, as well as an ethical one.
1. “completely out of context” – “nobody had any notice”
These are demonstrably false statements. The context is that the city has promised
a park for this built-up part of town since at least the early 1970s (see neighbors’
report at end of document for more detail); said park is listed as a project in the
current Park and Rec element of the general plan; the city has acknowledged time
and again the need; residents have repeatedly asked the city to take action, and
again and again the city has failed. So, the context is well established.
As Mayor Marx said at the June 14, 2016 discussion of the funds, “This is my
12th year on Council but I’ve been actively involved in the City affairs since 1994.
And every year, one way or another, I’ve heard people talking about, ‘We’ve got
to have a park in that area of the city.’ And trying to get it.”
As for “notice,” residents had again begun asking the city for park help about a year
prior to the June 2016 meeting where down-payment funds were at last allocated.
This was no secret. There were numerous meetings between residents and various
persons at city hall regarding getting moving on a park. Nobody knew till the last
minute there were any potential funds available. In fact, it was Lichtig who informed
several residents who met with her that funds had been “found” and suggested they
come to the council meeting on use of those “found” funds and request some.
Prior to that council meeting letters on the park funding request were sent to the
council, and were on the web for anyone who cared to look at them.
The council’s discussion that it intended to disburse “found” funds amounting to $6.9
million was properly noticed as to its subject matter. That no other community group
decided to pursue any of those was not due to lack of notice.
Christianson made similar allegations about “out of context” at the June 14, 2016
council meeting. This resulted in spirited back and forth with Councilmember
Ashbaugh.
Ashbaugh: If I may? This proposal is not coming out of thin air. It’s been over
fifteen years.
Marx: Actually it’s –
Ashbaugh: It’s been for fifteen years.
Christianson: Well, John, I haven’t heard of it.
Ashbaugh: That’s only because you haven’t been paying attention! Go look at
the Parks and Recreation Element. It’s in there!
Marx: John, you are out of order.
2. “I don’t feel a lot of loyalty to that decision.” One must note that the speaker voted
against it. That said, does one ethically go along with the democratic process, even
when disagreeing with the outcome, or does one, like Trump, selfishly turn the tables
upon the people you don’t like as soon as one’s power is ascendant? Disloyalty
indeed!
• We need to do a Parks Element update to find out if this park is a priority.
Two quotes: “I don’t think we’d be comfortable even funding a park not knowing if that’s
a priority for our city.” “I also don’t think we want to discredit the idea of a park in that
neighborhood being a priority. In fact, we want to do the Parks and Rec update to
determine whether or not it is.”
This is unfactual. As already noted, this park has been determined to be an “unmet
need,” and this part of town is the ONLY established part of town identified as having
this unmet need. I am personally aware of a city pledge to create a park going back
44 years. The unmet need is explicit in the current Parks Element, where it is listed
along with other to-do projects, most of which have been accomplished. In late 2016
this park, and getting on with making it happen, was listed in the current Parks
Department work program. Staff was told by the council to start work to make this
happen. This park is already an established priority, right now!
Insisting a new parks element is needed to establish this park priority is classic
death by process. It’s irrelevant. Unless somebody’s intent on seeing the park
disappear as a priority, and that’s why we need a new element, to make it disappear.
[Funding a new parks element: For the record, past general plan elements have been
funded through the general fund – or in a few cases a grant --, and customarily have
been done in-house by our highly competent staff. This one, by contrast, is proposed to
be done by a hired consultant, at probably 8 to 10 times the cost if done in-house, and
with a consultant constituting one more impermeable layer between the populace and
their city. This is a poor way to proceed. If there is to be an update, it should be funded
from general funds and performed in-house, by people with some skin in the game.
General plan updates have never been funded by raiding reserve funds.]
• The $900,000 parkland funds earmarked for “North Broad” are not dedicated to park
acquisition and can be used for anything.
Lichtig told you, “There are dedicated funds that go into the Parkland Development
Fund. And then there are these funds that have gone in, that have complete flexibility. . .
So you have no legal obligation to spend those dollars – You have complete flexibility to
spend those dollars however you want. . . So I just wanted to make sure there was
clarity. That there was complete flexibility related to these funds.”
Wow!
That is so opposite what the Council directed – and was told by staff they were
getting -- in June 2016. The council majority was passionate about finally setting
aside seed money sufficient for a down payment for this park, so the city could grab
a site when one’s available. Without a substantial reserve fund, they understood a
park will never happen because the real estate market moves much faster than the
city budget cycle. And after agreeing to set aside the funds, they insisted staff set up
the reserve fund so the money could NOT be grabbed for something else. Again, I
let them speak from a transcript of that meeting:
Marx: I’d just like to back up and talk about this park. How is it ever going to
happen if tonight we don’t take a stand and set aside that $900,000?
Ashbaugh: Exactly.
Marx: If a piece of property comes available that is a likely park site in that area?
It’s happened over and over again and people have come to the City and said,
“It’s in the Recreation Element. We need it.” And the answer is, “There’s no
money in the budget. It hasn’t been allocated.” So we need to have –
This is an ongoing saga that’s been going on for 40 years. It might be new to
some of us but it is not new to the people who live in that neighborhood. And it’s
something that the City committed to. Like they said, “Why don’t you do what you
said you’d do?” That’s something we said that we would do, over and over again.
. . We have discretion tonight. It is within our purview. This $900,000 has not
been allocated to anything. And real property is a valid CIP expenditure. So, I
think we should just take that opportunity tonight. That’s what I think.
There was extensive discussion of where to put the $900,000 so it would be secure
from money grabs for other things. Stanwyck and Derek Johnson both said the
parkland fund was the proper and secure place for it.
Johnson: We have a fund that’s set up already [the parklands fund]. So we
would just want to use the existing fund structure. Put it in there, and we’ll just
note for, as Shelly and the team manage the funding, that $900,000 has been set
aside for real property acquisition.
Then there was a motion:
Ashbaugh: I’ll make the motion that . . . the $900,000 in undesignated CIP be
placed in the Parkland Development fund for –
Marx: For acquisition of parkland in the North Broad area of the city.
Ashbaugh: All right… I’ll make that motion…
Marx: I’ll second it. Can I have a roll call?
Lichtig: Can I just clarify that you’re giving us authorization to make
amendments to the Resolutions, and there are two Resolutions, as appropriate to
match the Recommendation in the Motion?
Ashbaugh: Right.
Council member Carpenter again raised the matter of the security of the $900,000
for the earmarked purpose.
Carpenter: [I]s that money earmarked in the parkland fund for this specific
purpose? Or can it be changed later?
Johnson: The $900,000 will be earmarked for that purpose. It’d be subject to
future Council discretion, as we do for all real property acquisitions. We come to
the Council and typically meet in closed session and consult with you before we
spend any money and proceed with negotiations (for purchase of real property).
So, it is clear that your only “discretion” is in saying yea or nay to a specific real
estate purchase. There is no discretion to treat the $900,000 as “general” funds or
non-specified CIP funds. Staff said so to the council.
That being the case, what do we make of Lichtig’s telling you a story so at variance with
the clear intent of the previous council and with what staff told them about fund
inviolability when they set the funds in reserve?
Clearly, either she’s wrong in what she has told you about these not being “dedicated”
park funds and your having “complete flexibility” in use of these funds, or, if she’s
correct, she and/or the attorney must have engaged in some mischief in rewriting the
Resolutions the council intended and thought they were adopting in order to make them
mean something different from what was Moved and approved.
In either case, the public trust has been violated. And you might also contemplate what
this means for funds you might put into reserve, for example, for bike projects.
• There seems a lack of understanding of what reserve funds are, what they’re for, and
how they operate.
Reserve funds are the city’s equivalent of a dedicated savings account, so large
expenditures’ costs can be accumulated over time. They are intelligent financial
management.
By their mere existence they can also provide seed money on short notice for projects
which may have a short action window. Thus, for example, you have an open space
reserve fund that enables your staff to negotiate and when agreement is reached have
some earnest money to strike a deal. This $900,000 park fund is something similar.
When suitable property in a built-up part of town becomes available, absent some
dedicated earnest money in reserve, the property will pass to others long before the city
is able to move. The city has lost site after site because of this. That’s why this reserve
fund is ESSENTIAL for eventual realization of the park goal.
If you defund this reserve fund, when will it be replenished? With Lichtig’s projections of
future city budgets, the answer is obvious: NEVER. So defunding it amounts to crossing
this park off the city’s to-do list. It amounts to a breach of a near half-century trust with a
neighborhood, which through no fault of its own, has been promised and promised and
never achieved a much needed park.
Finally, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how reserve funds work – the notion
that the money’s just sitting there, so why don’t we just do something with it now? Well,
we could eat, drink and be merry today, but what happens when tomorrow dawns and
we’re broke? Reserve funds are for the long haul – they may sit and accumulate for
many years before they’re used. That’s the nature and purpose of the beast. And it’s a
good way to accomplish things of long-term value.
All money is not equal in purpose or use.
Conclusion. Please keep this fund intact so it’s available for its purpose as soon as it’s
needed. Thank you.
BELOW IS A COVER LETTER I SENT TO THE COUNCIL A
YEAR AGO, AND A REPORT ON THE PARK BACKGROUND
PREPARED BY A COMMITTEE OF NEIGHBORS FOR
EXPLAINING THE HISTORY.
June 11, 2016
Re: Agenda Item 22
Dear Council Members,
Attached is a report from the informally-established residents’ association that is
seeking to get the city to fulfill a General Plan promise of more than 40 years – the
acquisition of a neighborhood park site for the “North Broad” area of town.
The General Plan recognizes this as the ONLY part of the older city lacking and
needing a neighborhood park, and for many years has included ending this “unmet
need” in its list of civic General Plan goals.
The city says it’s interested in stabilizing older neighborhoods, and a neighborhood park
would be a way to help stabilize our threatened neighborhood.
We are asking that an adequate portion of the $5.8 million in unanticipated funds be
allocated to a reserve account so the city has funds at hand so it can pounce on any of
the few remaining sites when they are available. Absent such ready access to funds,
this park will NEVER happen – past opportunities have been lost for exactly the reason
that funds weren’t readily available.
Our “association” consists of a core group of about a dozen working stiffs, and has the
support of uncounted others. At a recent impromptu neighborhood sidewalk gathering,
where a park was part of the subject interest, there were more than 50 residents.
This park would serve thousands of your constituents, increasing their quality of life, and
would help strengthen the social fabric of this threatened older part of town. It’s exactly
the sort of “good planning” project a Good City should promote and get behind.
We request you do just that at Tuesday’s council meeting.
On behalf of the “steering association,” I submit our “Committee Report” (our effort at
providing the missing “staff report” on this subject) to you for your consideration.
Richard Schmidt
[Update May 2017. The $5.8 million figure above was the publicized amount of the
unallocated funds; it turned out there was even more so in other documents you’ll see
the $6.9 million figure, which is the correct final amount.]
North Broad Neighborhood Park Acquisition Funding Request
June 10, 2016
To City Council
From Informal Citizens Committee for a North Broad Neighborhood Park
Reason for this Request. We are requesting allocation of a portion of the currently
available fund for a “reserve fund” for a “North Broad” neighborhood park so the city has
funds available quickly when an opportunity arises to acquire a site for the
neighborhood park. In the past, the city has lost opportunities because its budget
process is too slow to allow it to compete in the real estate market. Time demands of
today’s market are even speedier than in past markets.
Introduction. For decades the city has noted a park deficiency in the “North Broad”
neighborhood, whose boundaries extend approximately from Stenner Creek to San Luis
Mountain between Highway 101 and Foothill Blvd.
• This project has been on the city’s “to do” list for more than 40 years. It is called for in
the General Plan.
• This is unfinished business that needs to be finished.
• Several ill-fated efforts have been made to obtain such a park.
• Now, some 40+ years after efforts began, the neighborhood is virtually entirely built
out, and only a few potential opportunities remain.
If the city does not move now to assure funding, while funds are available to set
up a park reserve account, it is likely there will never be a neighborhood park in
the North-of-101-to-Foothill area.
Establishing a park in a built-up neighborhood presents opportunities, issues and
problems different from establishing a park in an annexation area. Unlike in newly
developed areas, in older areas potential sites are limited. Opportunities for acquisition
may arise quickly, and if not acted upon with speed, the potential park site may go for
other uses before the city can budget funds. Therefore, it is important to have funds in
reserve for this purpose, so the city can move quickly when the opportunity presents
itself.
Parks need to be understood as more than simply recreational facilities. In a transitional
neighborhood such as “North Broad,” they can serve as catalysts for strengthening a
neighborhood. “North Broad” is currently threatened by speculator pressure to become
a high density transient district, but is also buoyed by the desire of families to settle in
an attractive and convenient older in-town location. A park as catalyst can stabilize a
troubled neighborhood like “North Broad,” making it more stable, more all-age friendly,
more family-friendly. An example of “park as catalyst” can be seen in “Anholm Park,” not
really a park, but a tiny neighborhood playground, underutilized for many years, that has
lately become a magnet attracting young families to the Lincoln Street sub-area of the
larger neighborhood. “North Broad” badly needs a larger neighborhood park to provide
“social cement” for an age-diverse area populated by both children and adults of all
ages.
The Need Is Stated In General Plan. Dealing with the lack of a park for “North Broad”
has been a part of city park planning since at least the 1970s. In the current Park and
Recreation Element of the General Plan (2001), for example, this need is made explicit
in several places and several ways.
The list of “unmet needs” denotes the “North Broad” neighborhood as having the only
unmet need for a neighborhood park in the entire city. In the list below, copied
directly from the P&R Element of the General Plan, “North Broad” park is item 6:
Note that most of these “unmet needs” of 2001 have been met. The city even spent $2
million to build a new skateboard park to replace an existing skateboard park, and that
item was not even on the “unmet needs” list. The “North Broad” park is one of the
exceptions to the city’s following this list of “unmet needs.”
The 2001 Park and Recreation Element also includes unmet need funding proposals.
Here, again directly from the General Plan element, is that list:
Note that these were expenditures to be undertaken within a 5 to 10 year window. Most
of these items have been dealt with. It has been 15 years, however, and still no
movement on a “North Broad” park. It should also be noted that real estate today is
much more costly, so the $500,000 acquisition estimate of 2001 is much too little in
2016’s land market.
History of Efforts/Opportunities to Obtain a “North Broad” Park. Our history only
goes back to the early 1970s.
1. At that time, the first missed opportunity was the Forden farm, at the corner of Broad
and Serrano, extending uphill to what is now Palomar. It came on the market. About 8
acres, with beautiful trees, a farmhouse and farm buildings including a great barn that
could have been fixed up for community use, it would have made a wonderful park. But
the city dallied because funds were not at the ready, and a developer purchased it and
subdivided the land.
2. In the later 1970s, Planning Director Rob Strong proposed, as part of a General Plan
revision, that a park be carved out of already-developed lots in the 100 block of Broad.
This proposal involved purchasing and demolishing the Brazil House at 148 Broad to
create a parking lot, and condemning the back yards of several residences to create a
center-of-block park. None of these properties were on the market – acquisition would
have been via eminent domain. The Council took one look at the idea of condemning
constituents’ homes, and shelved the idea. (To illustrate how incongruous the idea was
with various civic goals, the Brazil House is now on the city’s master list of historic
properties.)
3. For decades a large parcel between Foothill and Ramona next to the neighborhood
shopping center sat vacant. One development proposal after another came and went.
Neighbors repeatedly asked the city to purchase the tract as a park. Again, the city
dallied, claiming lack of access to funds. After years of city inaction, the Mormon Church
purchased the property and built on it.
4. Today, there are only two obvious potential park parcels remaining within the
neighborhood, and at the moment, neither is for sale. We believe, however, that could
change quickly and without notice, and the city would then have a narrow time window
in which to act. That means funds would need to be at the ready – and that’s the crux of
this request for setting aside a reserve account for this purpose. In today’s real estate
market, the city simply would not have time to go through a budget cycle to acquire
either of these sites.
Funding Mechanisms. On this issue, we’ve found considerable confusion among both
staff and council members we’ve spoken to. In annexation areas, park acquisition is
generally carried out by agreement with the developer. That is the situation the city has
dealt with in the recent past.
For unmet needs in an older built-out part of town (“North Broad” was mainly subdivided
in the 1920s and 1930s), developer exactions do not work. Meeting these unmet needs
is therefore largely a function of using the city’s general funds such as those being
allocated by the Council tonight. This is explicit in the Park Element’s program policies:
Clearly, as of this Council session and deliberation, funding exists in the form of the
unanticipated $5.8 million in city revenues Council members are being asked to divvy
up. Allocating a portion of those for the capital investment in a “North Broad” park site
seems both reasonable and appropriate.
Funding Request.
This request has several aspects.
1. We request the funds be put into a reserve account earmarked for a “North Broad”
park’s site acquisition. The reason for a reserve is twofold: first, obviously the funds
cannot be spent tonight on acquisition absent availability of a specific site; but second,
and more importantly, they need to be available on short notice when one of the sites
does become available so the city can move, with the speed required in the current real
estate market. Without funds on reserve, we’ll find ourselves where we’ve been in the
past, with the city taking months to years to get in motion, and in the meanwhile the
property being sold to others. IT IS ESSENTIAL FUNDS IN AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT
BE AVAILABLE QUICKLY WHEN NEEDED.
2. The advantage of a reserve account is the money isn’t actually spent until it’s
needed. In the meanwhile, it becomes part of the city’s investment portfolio. Should the
project ultimately fall through, the money is still available for other municipal purposes.
3. Our research of the current real estate market suggests a neighborhood park site
could cost close to $3 million, perhaps a bit less. While that sounds like a lot of money,
the city today finds itself with unanticipated funds plenty large enough to fund a reserve
account of that size. In doing so, the Council would be providing residents with
something of perpetual value rather than something internal to the city’s management,
of temporary value, from which none of them would actually benefit. We believe this is
precisely the sort of public-benefit capital investment a Good City undertakes.
4. If the council is uncomfortable with an open ended “perpetual” reserve account, it
might consider a “sunset” period equal to that of Measure G, 8 years. If the funds are
not expended in that time, a “sunset” would allow the council to reassess at that time
whether the funds should continue to be set aside for this park, or whether they are
better reallocated, hopefully to some other long-benefit resident-serving project.
5. Our explicit request: That the Council set aside $2.8 million of the $5.8 million
currently available in a ready reserve account earmarked for site acquisition for a
“North Broad” neighborhood park.
The “North Broad” neighborhood has been waiting for more than 40 years for a
promised park. It’s time to get this long-delayed process started in earnest.