Politics Role Reversal
Team Nickels descended on city council today to brief the council about the $67 million increase in fire levy costs. Nickels stumped for the original $167 million fire levy, and now council has to decide wether or not to go ahead with the levy at 40% over what voters approved in 2003.
In addition to the slide show of deteriorating fire stations that Team Nickels had running throughout their presentation to a skeptical council, Brenda Bauer, Nickels’s director of fleets and facilities, made a Joel Horn argument: the $67 million is not in current dollars, that’s over time, she said. “In today’s dollars it’s smaller than that.”
Indeed, monorail analogies—this time w/ Team Nickels playing the role of the “irresponsible board”— rang out at every turn. Team Nickels was trying to convince council to use council bonding capacity (councilmanic debt) to make up the difference and spread it out over a longer period of time. (Sound familiar?) Council Member (and budget chair) Richard McIver argued that if the city had to extend the bonds to cover higher costs, the levy should go back to the voters.
McIver asked: “If you can justify councilmanic debt to us, why can’t you justify it to voters?”
Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis responded: “That’s a political decision.”
Yes it is, Deputy Mayor. One that Team Nickels—despite its recent insistence on letting voters decide —seems scared to take. (Indeed, Ceis recommended against going back to voters with the increased costs.)
After the briefing, I asked McIVer if he was serious about a revote. “This is a whole new levy,” he said. “I think that option has to be on the table.”
Council Member Peter Steinbrueck overheard McIVer and shot in: “I agree with him!”
FEIT Wrote:
"Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis responded: “That’s a political decision.”
Yes it is, Deputy Mayor. One that Team Nickels—despite its recent insistence on letting voters decide —seems scared to take. (Indeed, Ceis recommended against going back to voters with the increased costs.)"
It does make one pause to wonder just
what Ceis would be willing to give up
in order for this NOT to go back to the voters. Yet, I would hope the council will do the right thing and put it before the voters.
Lastly, I am really curious why
there was this substantial lapse
in adequately estimating the intial
for the project. Material costs have
been rising, and I believe have been forecasted to rise for the past number of years due to global demand. The 40% ($67 mil.)increase in the overall cost isn't spare change. It is a huge amount as a percentage of the cost of the levy, and it really does make the underestimation a real cockup on the part of the city's executive branch.
It would seem somebody was asleep at the switch....which may be why Ceis
would rather not have this come back to
us.
---Jensen