Attorney John Crone stated that what it says on the pamphlet is wrong and that a citizen must call the Wednesday prior to a City Council meeting to ask permission to be placed on the agenda and that it is up to the discretion of the City Manager as to whether he deems their issue important enough to place on the Agenda.
In the end, thanks to the cooler head of Alderman Brad Lail, it was decided to allow the removal of the item from the Consent Agenda and allow Attorney Inglefield to address the Council in what would be the end of the meeting.
Assistant City Manager Andrea Surratt spoke in two addresses of the City Council that I will discuss later in the regular City Council Newsletter. The first issue was about a "Inspiring Spaces Plan Proposal" and then the second was related to the structure being built on Union Square:
Request for Additional Funding from the Capital Reserve Parking Fund and Consolidate Public Service Department Expenditures into the Union Square Pavilion Project (Exhibit IX.B.3.)
The project scope broadened when the project moved into the engineering phase in January. The increase in the contract with Neill Grading is $58,852.00, and the consolidation of Public Services Department expenses is $59,288.00. The remaining cost is an estimate of $25,000.00 for outdoor furniture for the space.
Staff recommends approval on two readings for additional funding from the Capital Reserve Parking Fund and consolidation of Public Services Department Expenditures into the Union Square Pavilion Project in the amount of
$137,940.00 for Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 21 and Capital Project Ordinance Amendment No. 1.
The above is related to the issue of the items F & G that Attorney Inglefield asked to be removed from the Agenda as per a citizens right according to the information on the front page of the Agenda pamphlet:
F. Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 21 (Exhibit VII.F.)
1. To appropriate $137,940 of Capital Reserve Parking Fund and transfer to the Canopy Project. This budget amendment is explained in Departmental Report No. 3.
G. Capital Project Ordinance Amendment No 1 (Exhibit VII.G.)
1. To accept a $137,940 appropriation of Capital Reserve Parking Fund Balance and budget in the Canopy Project construction line item.
After Ms. Surratt finished with her presentation, Attorney Inglefield came back to the podium and presented her concerns and she was followed by Cliff Moone and Walter Witherspoon. The Council then unanimously approved the additional expenditures on the project. Alderman Lail expressed regrets about the process that has taken place with this project, but stated that we cannot halt the project at this point and that he believes that the structure will be a good addition to Union Square.
Below are some of the points made by Attorney Inglefield, Reverend Moone, and Walter Witherspoon:
1. At the 3:37 mark Atty. Inglefield asks about the appropriate way to ask for a line item request of the canopy project. She was told that she needed to put it in writing by Mayor Wright and Atty. Crone and Atty Crone went on to say that the City is welcome to all such requests and will provide the information.
2. Atty. Inglefield next asked about the cost of the fabric for the structure to which Council members either could not or would not provide stating that it would be a matter of public record. Next she asked about the maintenance cost of the structure. Atty. Crone stated that this was not a time for back and forth discussion, but the city is real easy to get along with. Put the request in writing and they will follow up. He said that the city is very open about all of this.
3. Atty. Inglefield stated that when we realized that these additional items related to engineering would be necessary in January, then that would have been the perfect time to stop and reassess the project and decide if we wanted to spend the additional money. She related the issue to the swimming pools and agencies, such as harbor House, that have needs. She talked to the Mayor about comments in the past that he made that the pools were bulldozed, because they were frills. She asked if public swimming pools would be part of an inspiring space. The mayor stated that this was not a debate... not a time for give and take... The Mayor said it was her turn to talk and their turn to listen. Atty. Inglefield went into specifics about agency needs that are going unanswered by the Council.
4. Cliff Moone wanted a clarification about Ald. Lail's second motion related to the front page of the Agenda pamphlet. Atty Crone stated that that the issue would be cleaned up... he agreed that the language should be cleaned up and citizens need to understand the procedure. Rev. Moone also went into the issue of the Poverty Tour that came through the city that no one from Council attended. He didn't know if they hadn't been invited.
5. Walter Witherspoon asked about all of the names that have been given to the structure. He has three documents. One document calls the structure the Farmer's market. A second calls it a canopy structure. A third calls it the Pavilion project. Are these one project or seperate projects... are these the budgetary names? He wants these issues squared away in his mind. He sees that the city is involved... now heavily involved... there was a contingency fund of $25,000 and now it is $137,000. That is 35 to 40% higher than the original price. Was this considered initially. Were we in such a hurry to get the structure up that we lost foresight... that we didn't have objection. With rust going on here that sounds like money down the drain to me. There should be more public input. When you vote think about those things.
The Consent Agenda was reconsidered, except for F and G, and passed by the City Council. Discussion took place related to the structure on Union Square and Alderman Lail stated his approval of the project, but stated that looking with hindsight he should have asked more question and he does regret the process. They don't have a whole lot of options other than to move forward with the project. Mayor Wright made statements along with Alder Patton related to their approval of the project.
The Hound: The only person that had input in this project that has said anything that relates to understanding of the issue was Alderman Lail when he stated that he regretted the process. And that is the first person that is a City Government official that has gotten it. It seems like a few of these people think they are Overlords instead of representatives. 99% of the people aren't against a structure being built on Union Square. What they are tired of is this regime's by hook or by crook governance. Open government is what this nation was built upon and when it works best. What was open about this process. The cost overruns and every fault with this project has been related to the process.
A friend said something profound tonight. The City of Hickory Government throws a dart at a blank wall and runs up to the wall and paints a bullseye around it (the dart)... The end justifies the means... The cart is before the horse... The outcome is decided before the process begins. In any large successful business organization you would be fired for something like this.
I read the Hickory Daily Record's preview for this meeting and the headline was "Donations, budget changes at Hickory City Council meeting." Reading further into the short summation there was zero mention about this $137,000 being added to the $285,000+ that was already appropriated for this structure. What is up with that? They talked about the poverty tour, but they won't talk about the priorities of this city's leadership. A leadership that chooses to constantly favor the well to do and connected over those who are struggling. And don't think the other media outlets around here deserve a pass either. Their priorities and personal favoritism has played right into the hands of all of this ill advised decision making.
Honestly, I hope God's peace, love, and mercy find shelter for us all.
Now up to $420,000+ for the Tent on Union Square
Union Square Canopy Cost Figures
$285,000+ : Bang for the Buck???
Hickory Farmer's Market questions the Big Tent on Union Square - March 17, 2012
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of January 3, 2012
Newsletter about the City Council meeting of December 20, 2011 -- Addendum on Union Square's largest Awning yet - $285,000
I want to tell you all, now that this has happened, that we have been planning this since the night of December 20, 2011. We read that front page and realized that the key was there the whole time. We didn't think the Council understood the procedures of the ordinance and would do exactly what happened tonight. I mean they reacted point blank as we thought they would tonight. We are not bragging about this. All we want is open government, which means open processes and level playing fields without conflicts of interests and deals behind the scenes. It is that simple!
Attorney Crone stated that the city welcomes all public information requests and is easy to work with. I have been told otherwise, but according to the State of North Carolina it is our information and their responsibility to provide it to us. Below is a template to request information from the City of Hickory:
Place the Date on this line (ex: January 1, 2012)
Ms. Arnita Dula
Staff Attorney
City of Hickory
N. Center Street
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
Dear Ms. Dula, This letter is a request for all public documents pertaining to (The issue that you would like information on). I am entitled to the public information that I am requesting according to Chapter 132 of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina’s General Assembly.
According to the North Carolina Public Records Law, “The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people.” Your cooperation is greatly appreciated in my attempt, as a public citizen, to understand the facts of this issue.
Thank You,
(Your Signature Here)
Name
Address
City
Phone Number for contacting you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hounds Advice: If under any circumstances you are given the runaround, I want you to contact us at hickoryhound@gmail.com. We want to publicize such incidents and get to the root cause of why the City would not willingly provide the information.
2 comments:
Sure, they're easy to work with, for a price. Start making requests and there's going to be a fee. Insofar as the 'process' of removing items from the consent agenda, for the public to understand it, you have to explain what it is. I read the statement and I understood it. But apparently, that isn't correct.
As far as Brad Lail 'getting it', I truly don't believe he does. He gets there a lot of turmoil surrounding this project. He gets the proper process was subverted to initiate it and bring it to fruition. He gets that a growing number of people are waking up concerning how City government is running roughshod over the populace. He gets his position of power is tenuous and he gets how that relates back to the family business. And in my mind, those last two things are what that public statement was made to insulate.
And this 'we've come too far to stop now' ideology. Really? Continuing to throw more good money at something few people wanted to begin with. What a good idea! They could stop now and stop the waste, but no, they've wasted this much, waste it all.
As Silence said, the fee is part of the request procedure, but only part. I think the more significant part is that is goes away from the open forum of a council meeting to a one on one meeting where a concerned citizen is dryly sold documents, and they then have to work to publicly articulate their points on the Councils actions. It may even come to late to influence Council on an immanent action. This is also why the Council won't respond when a citizen requests to speak at a meeting. Let them have their time and ignore them publicly. If they're nice and obedient be nice to them privately after the meeting. If they're obnoxious, then to heck with them.
As far as Brad trying to be a little more accomodative, too little too late. I don't put much stock in mealy mouthed, half hearted attempts at empathy when there will be nothing substantial done on the actions Council is taking.
No doubt people can see Council's true colors more and more. Question is: when will it lead to change?
Post a Comment