Issue 1: The new insurance contracts. Each year we approve new insurance contracts. This year the employees requested an increase in our insurance coverage.
Analysis 1: Insurance rates continue to go up. Last year we shifted some of the costs to the employees so that there was an incentive to control costs. For that reason, I favor allowing the employees to have more of a choice in choosing their own benefits.
Conclusion 1: I supported the new insurance contracts with the expectation that we will have to find approximately $20,000 additional dollars this year for the benefits.
Issue 2: Water Accountability Ordinance. In September 2009, the City Council considered whether to remove fluoride from the water. It was a tied vote and the Mayor voted to leave fluoride in the water. This year Jamie Davis has made one of her goals removing fluoride from the water. She has proposed the Water Accountability Ordinance as a comprehensive approach towards water additives.
Analysis 2: The Water Accountability Ordinance proposes to (1) make companies guarantee the safety of their additives; (2) make the City verify the purity of the additives; and (3) prohibit additives that don't meet purity and health guarantees. While this is a great philosophy, I don't think that it's a good law. It needs changes. Companies will never accept guaranteeing the health of their product for all people without conditions. Secondly, I think that the law creates an overly difficult burden for placing additives in the water with the goal of making the hurdles too high to jump for any company. To me a better law would be banning water additives altogether instead of implementing standards that are so stringent that no one will be able to meet them.
Conclusion 2: I couldn't support the Water Accountability Ordinance in its current form. I wanted to see some things changed. However, I never had the chance to make those amendments prior to it being voted on. Therefore, I had to vote against the ordinance. As no other motion was made, the matter died.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Business Improvement District Petition.
Issue 1: Consideration of the Business Improvement District.
Facts 1: For decades, the City of Sandpoint has had a business association for the downtown. Historically, this organization operated through volunteers and contributions. In 2000, a majority of the businesses petitioned the City of Sandpoint to create a taxing district as permitted by Idaho Code - the Business Improvement District.
Since 2000, the City has collected the taxes from downtown businesses according to the method (square foot assessment) and rates approved by the BID board. Each year the City also contracts out the management of the BID to the Downtown Sandpoint Business Association. The DSBA uses the revenue to host events in the downtown, make improvements and support the costs of administration, namely a full-time staff member. In effect, the BID is self-created, self-managed and self-administered.
The BID creation, management and value have consistently been debated. Business across 5th Avenue are especially critical stating that they receive very few benefits from a downtown business association.
Approximately one year ago, opponents to the BID brought a petition to the City to disband the BID. Under Idaho Code, if a majority of the business owners petition the City, the City Council must disband the BID. This initial petition had multiple problems. The signatures had been collected over a period of years. Signatures on the petition no longer supported the measure or had moved. At that time, it was recommended that the City reject the petition. I made a specific request to our City Attorney that he inform the petitioners of the requirements for a valid petition.
In March 2010, the petitioners returned with a new petition. I was informed by email that the City Clerk, City Attorney and Mayor had rejected some of the signatures on the petition. Consequently, the petition didn't meet the majority requirement. The Mayor then placed the matter on the Administrative Committee agenda without a recommendation stating that the Council could voluntarily disband the BID, if we choose.
Analysis 1: This was frustrating situation. The Administrative Committee took no part in the analysis or rejection of the signatures. This was action taken by the Clerk, Mayor and City Attorney. Despite that, when the Mayor placed this matter on the Administrative agenda, she made the Council the focal point for criticisms on how the process was handled.
I am sympathetic to those criticisms in part. From my own review, I wasn't able to get a clear determination of the standards that the City used to evaluate the signatures. From the perspective of the petitioner, I am sure that it appears that the City is using changing standards.
Conclusion: The BID has always been a self-created and self-managed taxing entity. From my perspective, Council action to shut down the BID -without a valid petition- would be taking a step away from the independence that the City has typically given the BID. Further, there was no proposal before the City Council. The Mayor had placed the item on the agenda without an advocate, recommendation, or proposal.
We listened to both sides of the argument because many people had shown up to speak on the issue and it's important that they have a forum. After the arguments had been stated, I requested a motion on the issue. No motion was made. The matter died in committee.
Facts 1: For decades, the City of Sandpoint has had a business association for the downtown. Historically, this organization operated through volunteers and contributions. In 2000, a majority of the businesses petitioned the City of Sandpoint to create a taxing district as permitted by Idaho Code - the Business Improvement District.
Since 2000, the City has collected the taxes from downtown businesses according to the method (square foot assessment) and rates approved by the BID board. Each year the City also contracts out the management of the BID to the Downtown Sandpoint Business Association. The DSBA uses the revenue to host events in the downtown, make improvements and support the costs of administration, namely a full-time staff member. In effect, the BID is self-created, self-managed and self-administered.
The BID creation, management and value have consistently been debated. Business across 5th Avenue are especially critical stating that they receive very few benefits from a downtown business association.
Approximately one year ago, opponents to the BID brought a petition to the City to disband the BID. Under Idaho Code, if a majority of the business owners petition the City, the City Council must disband the BID. This initial petition had multiple problems. The signatures had been collected over a period of years. Signatures on the petition no longer supported the measure or had moved. At that time, it was recommended that the City reject the petition. I made a specific request to our City Attorney that he inform the petitioners of the requirements for a valid petition.
In March 2010, the petitioners returned with a new petition. I was informed by email that the City Clerk, City Attorney and Mayor had rejected some of the signatures on the petition. Consequently, the petition didn't meet the majority requirement. The Mayor then placed the matter on the Administrative Committee agenda without a recommendation stating that the Council could voluntarily disband the BID, if we choose.
Analysis 1: This was frustrating situation. The Administrative Committee took no part in the analysis or rejection of the signatures. This was action taken by the Clerk, Mayor and City Attorney. Despite that, when the Mayor placed this matter on the Administrative agenda, she made the Council the focal point for criticisms on how the process was handled.
I am sympathetic to those criticisms in part. From my own review, I wasn't able to get a clear determination of the standards that the City used to evaluate the signatures. From the perspective of the petitioner, I am sure that it appears that the City is using changing standards.
Conclusion: The BID has always been a self-created and self-managed taxing entity. From my perspective, Council action to shut down the BID -without a valid petition- would be taking a step away from the independence that the City has typically given the BID. Further, there was no proposal before the City Council. The Mayor had placed the item on the agenda without an advocate, recommendation, or proposal.
We listened to both sides of the argument because many people had shown up to speak on the issue and it's important that they have a forum. After the arguments had been stated, I requested a motion on the issue. No motion was made. The matter died in committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
