|
|
Charter Review Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
Brush Creek Community Center
May 7, 2005
Council members Present
Becky Nace
Members Present
Terry Ward
Bishop Mark Tolbert
Dan Porrevecchio
Mary Jo Longstreth
Calvin Williford
Carolyn Vellar
Staff Present
Greg Williams, Mayor’s Office
Bill Geary, Law Department
Terry Ward thanked everyone for coming to participate and also talked about the work for far of the Commission. He said that no decisions have been made, but the commission was appreciate of the work from 2000-2001 and that the one direction the commission is pursuing is to use the July 10, 2001 new charter as its base document.
Mary Lindsey asked about initiative and what would be the reason for any change. Terry Ward stated that it would be a theory of before you had a city-wide vote on an issue, you demonstrated that a certain amount of people from throughout the city would have signed the petitions. There was thought to keep the 5% threshold, but make a certain amount of the threshold come from four of six Council districts. Ward continued that it had been discussed, but no decision has been made. Lee Lambert asked if a change in initiative happened, would it affect Neighborhood Improvement Districts. Councilwoman Becky Nace said no, it was just issues that are brought by the public for city-wide ballot issues.
Mark Esping asked when there was an initiative on the ballot by itself costing the city $350,000. (In researching the question back to 1998, Greg Williams could not find an example of a stand-alone initiative ballot question.) Mary Lindsey said anything setting the bar higher was anti-democratic. Mark Esping asked what other government demands geographical proportionality to initiative petitions. Terry ward responded that Missouri does by requiring a threshold from six of nine Congressional districts. Mary Jo Longstreth said when the commission studied this four years ago they had research from across the country.
Councilwoman Nace said that in fairness we don’t ask the voters to demonstrate geographical support. An issue could get 95% in one district and below 50% in the other districts, buy would pass if the City as a whole voted more than 50% for an issue. She remembered an issue that the 6th district wanted but was turned down city-wide, the Blue Ridge Mall which was threatened with referendum. She proposed limiting votes on issues to a geographical area such as a council district or school district.
Mary Lindsey disagreed with that citing Blue Ridge Mall as an example. Blue Ridge Mall concerned redirected TIF revenue which Ms. Lindsey said was in effect city-wide revenue. Councilwoman Nace said that it was generated solely because of the Blue Ridge Mall area. Nace said it wasn’t fair for people who had never seen it or been there to be able to have the opportunity to vote it down simply because of their potential tenant. Lindsey again said the TIF money is city money. Nace said that it would be generated by the economic activity at Blue Ridge Mall. Lee Lambert said that the 3rd District recall was only voted on in that district, but recall is different than initiative.
Calvin Williford said one thing on initiative that he thought citizens would like was making the Law Department available for legal review of proposed initiative petitions. He explained that it would be a timed review and be optional to the petitioners. The reasoning behind it was to make sure petitions contained a legal position that could be implemented legally. Mark Esping went back to the geographical issue and said gathering and verifying petitions would be an administrative nightmare. You would need to have nine different petitions, one for each district, but the splitting District 1, 2 and 6 between Clay, Platte, Jackson and Cass Counties, which ever that part of the district you were gathering the signatures. Esping went on to say that the process would probably be transferred from average citizens to organized groups with resources. It would be a very complicated bookkeeping process.
Frank Brown said that good things are happening in the city, but the positive changes are not reaching everyone. Sometimes it hasn’t helped the whole community. Mr. Brown went on to talk about accountability and Beacon Hill. We must get accountability because everyone must be accountable for their actions.
Dan Porrecvecchio says that that is exactly why the Charter Commisison wants to write a more constitutional charter. It will help make the City officials more accountable along with providing more flexibility. Our goal is exactly that – accountability.
Bishop Mark Tolbert said that Parks and Recreation is important because we can physically see what they are doing in the city. Marquita Henry has been going to parks all of her life and some are not at the same standard. Swope Park does not have a swingset and play equipment while parks up north and in south Kansas City do. Cynthia Canady said we all pay taxes and we are seeing all of the activity in Downtown, but nothing on the east side. Nothing down on 18th and Vine that I want to see. Vacant lots for 35 years that have never been developed. Eltiza Porter said there is a house at 5001 East 41st Street across from her (she lives at 4926 E. 41st – 830-2430) that for four years no one has cut the grass and there are snakes. There is no accountability.
Richard Tolbert said that money is so important in politics that if anything initiative petition should be easier to present to the Council. Term limits are serving us well. Money creates an uneven playing field and it is a great mechanism. Mary Lindsey agreed with that statement. Mary Jo Longstreth said there is not a consensus among the Commission and no one has taken a position on either initiative or term limits. One interesting piece of testimony happened yesterday when Councilwoman Bonnie Sue Cooper said that the effect of term limits caused the power to be shifted from the elected officials to the department heads, staff, and lobbyists. She saw that in Jefferson City. The staff believes they can wait out the elected officials. Richard Tolbert said he has not seen that argument in practice. Lee Lambert said that he has what part of no doesn’t everyone understand about changing term limits. The citizens will reject nay change.
Mark Esping said that Mark Funkhouser’s audit showed how bad Parks and Recreation take scare of its parks. There are bad situations with no long-term maintenance plans. They spent so much time messing with trying to sell Penn Valley Park when what they should do is take care of what they have now.
Dan Porrevecchio said that Parks and Recreation asked for the status quo in their governance structure. There is a great history with Parks and recreation and very prominent Kansas Citians have run their department from the Board. The structure has allowed them to raise private contributions in the millions that would not be there if not for their independence. In just the last ten years they have lost half their budget and half their employees.
Porrevecchio then went on to explain that one of the Commission’s tasks is to figure out what departments should be in the Charter and which ones should be at the particular Council and Manager’s discretion. Also he reiterated that Parks and Recreation wants to maintain their independence.
Lee Lambert said that cities who move their parks and recreation under the city manager many times move it back to a board because it doesn’t work. Lambert suggested election of the Park Board. Porrevecchio said that the Parks Board has a great reputation. Calvin Williford said that one issue Parks and Recreation presented was they want to assess, on boulevards, not only the frontage land but also improvements. Williford said it should remain revenue neutral in only the first year, but after that create more revenue to care for the boulevards. Now it costs $4 to maintain that which they receive $1 from the homeowners.
Marquita Henry said the biggest problem in her neighborhood is lots that need mowing. We need to have more money for mowing lots and most of them are Land Trust lots. Porrevecchio said that Parks and Recreation got more money for mowing because it was consolidated into Parks and Recreation. Councilwoman Nace expanded on that by saying that the mowing responsibility was shifted to them. As a Council, Nace said that difficult decisions were presented. Starlight was going to get cut $600,000, but that money leveraged $10 million in private money. Nace said independence for the Parks Department makes sense because if it is a budget discussion with parks vs. indigent care vs. ambulance service, parks would never win. But without parks we would have a diminished quality of life. Lee Lambert said he lived on a boulevard and they are supposed to shovel the walk, but it never happens.
Richard Tolbert asked where Parks and Recreation gets its great reputation. We used to have wading pools all throughout the city. They are raising tons of money for Starlight and the Zoo, but nothing for our community. Richard Tolbert said we should elect the Park Board by district. Bishop Mark Tolbert said he thought that of Parks and Recreation’s private donations, 20% should go to support parks throughout the city. Marquita Henry said the zoo is very unfriendly. The last time she went it cost $50 for three kids after concessions and tickets.
Lee Lambert said that near the Independence Plaza neighborhood there were three parks nearby. The neighborhood received PIAC money for those parks and has also used volunteer efforts to keep them clean. Parks has promised new playground equipment but the price was too high for Parks’ budget. It is the citizens duty to be vigilant on the performance of Parks and Rec. Mark Esping asked how much boulevard revenue flowed into the Parks Department and what happened to the free concerts like at Washington Square Park. Cindy Circo said that everyone must take some responsibility. Circo said here area does not have a park, but they are starting a neighborhood association. Bishop Tolbert said that it is important for Parks and Recreation to get other organizations in the community involved in mowing like churches. Marquita Henry said that Land Trust is private land and they don’t want you mowing. Richard Tolbert said no one should be arrested for mowing.
Carolyn Vellar asked if they thought the City or State should run the Police Department. Richard Tolbert and Marquita Henry said the City should run it. Lee Lambert said no, it should remain the same.
Mark Esping then said all bonds should go out for bid. It costs the city money if there is no bid. He said we should all read Yael Abouhalkah because has consulted with experts around the country on all issues related to the charter. Dan Porrevecchio said that four years ago the Commission did consult with experts from around the country trying to give the best government to the citizens and that gives general direction to the elected and appointed officials. Porrevecchio said that in his opinion there were too many operational details in the charter.
Mark Esping then said that the citizens needed to fight back against this attempt to change the charter, term limits, initiatives, and other items. Greg Williams stated that this commission had not made their mind up on anything other than a streamlined, more constitutional charter. Lee Lambert said that he would worry about what was left out of the more detailed charter. Greg Williams said it would be added to the code of ordinances over the interim before a new charter was in effect. Richard Tolbert likes the idea of separating out the controversial items. He thought there was a charter issue in the HEDFC scandal. He said it was a way to bypass the charter by saying it forbids the city from being involved in an issue and it creates an outside organization to bypass the charter, like the EDC.
Councilwoman Nace said money was squandered on Tracy. She said HEDFC doesn’t allocate funding they receive. The kept dumping the money to save their investment and the city had no scrutiny over the details. We outsourced the expertise so we did not see. Richard Tolbert said over 30 years the city controls must come back to city government. Councilwoman Nace said we would never see the details. Richard Tolbert said to bring the HEDFC back to the city like they should do with the EDC.
Dan Porrevecchio said bringing everything back to city government and then putting all the details in the charter is how we ended up with a 350-plus page charter which does not give any operational flexibility to the city. Richard Tolbert said it is time to change the charter to give the city more responsibility and accountability.
Lee Lambert said that in 1992 the city made sidewalks the responsibility of homeowners. He wants the city to take the sidewalks back. City trees growing in the parking have roots which damage the sidewalks and then the homeowner is faced with repairs. Lambert wants that put in the charter. Bill Geary said the special assessments are not in the charter. Lee Lambert asked if we could sue the city. Bill Geary said he did not say that.
Lee Lambert said that Housing Court should be written into the charter. Richard Tolbert disagreed saying that Housing Court s not working for law-abiding citizens. The departments are feeding complaints to Housing Court and it has become the first step. Lee Lambert said that Portland had an Office of neighborhood Involvement and handed out a document. He compared that to Kansas City’s website especially related to neighborhoods. Lambert suggested some sort of official recognition for neighborhood associations. He would like rules and an official process. It would give more responsibility to the neighborhood associations. Richard Tolbert disagreed and did not want neighborhood associations in the charter.
Lee Lambert said he was frustrated because FOCUS has disappeared. The paint program is one example of a successful program going away because of budget. Marquita Henry wants the Zoo to be un-privatized. She said it had declined greatly in quality. Councilwoman Nace said that the Zoo had received numerous awards as a “research zoo.” It is not customer-friendly. Nace said the new zoo director had an entertainment, customer focus. He is going tot improve the zoo into a entertainment facility again and not a research zoo.
Mary Lindsey asked how the legal review would work. Greg Williams replied that it was like free legal advice so that if petitioner was proposing a sales tax, the city actually had the authorization that the petitioner proposed. Councilwoman Nace said it is important the elections not be used for non-implementable ideas. Richard Tolbert asked why Skip Sleyster’s water-runoff petions were turned down. Lee Lambert said the commission should have been appointed by the community at large. It should have more public involvement.
Dan Porrevecchio said that if you are active you can get things done and a constitutional charter would allow more things to get done more efficiently. Cynthia Canady said that her area is hurt by absentee owners and renters. The owners that rent ignore the court dates for their tickets while it punishes the homeowners. Bishop Tolbert said that codes department was in the midst of being reformed.
|
|
