Members of the city's Finance and Budget Committee are discussing the need for a new policy that would require projects involving large capital expenditures to be reviewed before going to the City Council.
Committee members spoke about such potential policies at Tuesday's meeting and expressed concern that they were not given the opportunity to analyze proposals such as: 15-year lease agreement for City Hall in a downtown office building – a potential $37.4 million project.
“It's disappointing to read in a paper about this kind of thing that was clearly centered around the commission,” commission member Leslie McMillan told City Engineer Lara Biggs.She included the suddenness of the city. $2.6 million purchase At the same meeting where issues with the Civic Center and police and fire headquarters were discussed, the situation at the former Little Beans Cafe was discussed. City officials argued they needed to act quickly to buy the building, which they hope to convert into a community center, because they feared someone would take it off the market.
Looking at the city's actions, McMillan said, “it makes you question what exactly we think the commission's purpose is.” “I think it’s purely a performance, unless you’re talking about things like this.”
Mr Biggs had been invited to a meeting to present options for the future of the Civic Center and police and fire headquarters, including estimated costs.
Other members of the commission also criticized the city's recent actions on major projects that sought feedback from the commission.
The group, which was founded in 2021 and is in the midst of another chaotic budget season, is made up of both city council members and fiscally savvy residents like McMillan, and it meets monthly with staff and various experts. It holds meetings and thoroughly investigates the city's financial issues.
McMillan said issues such as relocating the civic center “should have been talked about for a long time.” And you know, it's a shame and I don't understand how we think it's going to cost $500 per square foot to renovate the facility. [the Civic Center]. As you know, many of these numbers need to be challenged. ”
McMillan noted that she and member Shari Reiches met with Biggs about a month ago. She said the possibility of something happening was raised, but “no numbers came up, or even the possibility of signing a 15-year lease with a $9 million opt-out after seven years.” “It was,” he said.
Reich: The process, not the decision itself
Reisch joined in, saying he had no objections to the city's decision. “I think it’s a process,” she said. “And we spend a lot of time as a budget committee, but these two items were not on the budget,” she said, referring to the civic center and police/fire headquarters issues.
She told Biggs that Reisch also heard about the incident through the media. “And I went to the City Council website and looked. … So I'm just more disappointed in the process than all the decisions that were made.”
Several members of the Budget Committee who voted against the Civic Center lease at the Jan. 22 council meeting agreed.
Lack of transparency worries Kerry
Councilor Clare Kelly (Ward 1) said she was concerned about the lack of transparency, adding: “In the end, a decision was made publicly within 45 minutes, which means that people who have lived in one place for 15 years and moved to another “It was a big decision to potentially build a building.” ”
“I mean, this is a terrible thing to do in our community, especially when you have a finance and budget committee,” Kelly said, adding, “I would also say that a 15-year lease is ridiculous. This is the weakest office building market in 10 years.”
She added, “This idea of $63 million for rehabilitation… [the Civic Center] – So people look at those numbers and laugh. ”
She argued that the committee should issue a statement of disapproval of the process that took place to prevent history from repeating itself. “It's not enough to say we're going to do this going forward,” she said of the idea of developing policy.
Lead: Little Beans may be an exception.
But Councilman Devon Reed (Ward 8) said he sees the committee's role as one to consider the financial impact of the project. For example, he said, poring over what the city's total cost of the project would be if the city were to stay in the 909 Davis building for a full 15 years.
“And I respond to calls from people saying this was supposed to happen to this body,” Reed said.
“I don't know if Little Beans' small purchases necessarily needed to come before this committee. I think Congress needs to be able to move and respond efficiently.”
Like Reisch, meeting chair David Livingstone said he didn't think it was the committee's role to turn the council around.
“I have a big problem with the fact that there is no policy that requires unbudgeted capital project costs or costs that exceed a certain amount to go to this committee before going to City Council for approval. , because it warns us that something like this is coming and provides more opportunity for public input and debate,” he said.
He said he doesn't think it's the committee's responsibility to make some kind of statement that “we think this is a bad project.” That will be a decision for the City Council to make, he said.
“Next on the agenda is to vote on the requirement that unplanned capital expenditures and cost overruns be submitted here first before being submitted to City Council,” he told the committee.
