[Vision2020] City Budget Hearings

Sat Aug 2 22:56:56 PDT 2008

Linda,

It’s good to hear from you.  However, I must respectfully disagree with you
on this one.  Economic times during 2007 looked much better than now.  In
addition, in view of the City’s very poor record on project development,
cost overruns, etc., the City should save taxpayer money and let others do
the economic development.  The City of Moscow does not understand that “Time
is Money.”  There is not the efficiency that is found in the private sector
and I doubt hiring an economic development director will do anything to
improve that.  Another great example of ‘inefficiency’ is the process the
URA goes through to sell lots in Alturas Technology Park.  It is no wonder
that they can’t even sell the lots at less than undeveloped prices because
no business wants to go through the convoluted process.  The URA should
definitely NOT buy land for resale with your taxpayer dollars.  An economic
development director is not going to fix this.

Pullman and Lewiston do not have economic development directors.  One might
work in Eugene Oregon, but Eugene has a population of 155,000, seven times
larger than Moscow.  If you subtract the number of students out of each
city, Eugene is 11 times larger than Moscow.  An $86,000 economic
development position in Eugene will not have nearly the impact on their city
budget as it will on Moscow’s budget.

I was mostly concerned about the URA Budget this year.  However, the more I
look into it, the more concerns I have about the general Moscow City Budget
too.  For example, the Lewiston City Budget is less than Moscow’s.  Lewiston
has a population of 31,794 compared to Moscow’s of 23,233.  Lewiston’s 2009
proposed budget is $52,656,080 compared to Moscow’s $55,500,000.  Moscow’s
proposed budget is $2,843,920 more than Lewiston’s, even though Lewiston has
8,571 more people.  If you subtract students, Lewiston has 15,600 more
people.  Lewiston’s City area is 10 square miles larger than Moscow’s (16.5
sq. miles versus 6.15 sq. miles).  Why is Moscow’s budget more than
Lewiston’s?  In addition, Lewiston is proposing to reduce their budget by
$735,140 this year.  Moscow should do the same.

Moscow could take lessons from Lewiston regarding easy to understand City
government.  Check out their Citizen’s Guide to the City Budget:

http://www.cityoflewiston.org/budget0607/budget0607.htm

Now try to find the proposed Moscow City Budget online. 

This is not the time to increase City government at taxpayer expense.
Instead of up-staffing, increasing administration expense and asking for the
maximum amount of taxes allowed by law, perhaps the Mayor and City Council
should look at reducing the budget and focus on being efficient.  This is
not the time to be Empire Building.

B. J. Swanson

From: Linda Pall [mailto:lpall at moscow.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 2:13 PM
To: B. J. Swanson; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] City Budget Hearings

Dear BJ and Visionaries,

BJ, I respect your opinion and your service to the City over many years in
the area of economic development. Without your support on the State
Department of Commerce Community Development Committee, we would not have
gained the needed funds for projects at the 1912 Center, among others.

However, I must disagree with your recommendation concerning the Fiscal Year
2009 budget and encourage Visionaries to SUPPORT the addition of a CIty of
Moscow Economic Development Director.

Here is part of a Budget Session Memorandum, dated July 16, 2007, that I
distributed to the Mayor and Council last summer. The services of an
in-house economic development coordinator,  shared by the URA, make even
more sense now. Note that this addresses a big problem with the way economic
development is managed by the governmental partner: lack of coordination and
consistent follow-through. This is part of recognizing the defined roles of
the Chamber, LEDA and regional project-oriented organizations like CEDA and
retaining appropriate financial support for those groups. These groups do
not address the need for public/private partnerships throughout the City
over the long haul to coordinate a long-term, consistent community vision
for economic development. This vision must incorporate policies that
increase local wealth, building on what we have first and reaching out to
capital intensive development that enhances job creation. 

The Chamber's role is primarily marketing of the existing business
community. LEDC is county-wide and regional, with the very important focus
of the Knowledge Corridor in cooperation with UI, WSU and Pullman. The City
of Moscow has no coordination for downtown development and revitalization,
commercial development on the edges of the CIty, business development
incentives, and a sense of how to follow through with the goals of economic
development identified in our comprehensive plan revision. Many other
communitites have successfully employed talented people in positions like
this to make sure the community maintains a hold on its future direction.
They have paid for themselves many times over.

"Goal for an In-House Economic Development Director.

The goal of such a director is the development of new jobs for Moscow, to
enhance the existing business community and expand and improve business
opportunities throughout the City. 

There is constant pressure in and out of Moscow for growth and development.
It is clear that if the City does not take a strong, positive stand for
‘right-sized growth’ that we will not be able to shape our future. We need
more and better jobs, in the private sector as well as in higher education.
We have a wonderful opportunity to coordinate with LEDC and CEDA to assist
at a regional level. However, if we do not have local in-house follow
through, we are not working intentionally to create the kind of economic
future we want and need for our citizens.

The models exist in many other communities across the northwest, with
excellent results for those communities. Eugene, Oregon, another university
community, has benefited greatly from having such in-house expertise over
the years and is a model to review as we determine the proper job
description here.

Now is the time to begin this process because of the Urban Renewal Agency
efforts adjacent to downtown Moscow and because of the impact this area can
have on the university and the community at large. A partnership with the
URA is an obvious choice because our city supervisor’s time and talents are
already stretched to their limits." 

    from Memorandum to City Council, July 16, 2007 by Linda Pall, City
Council Member through January, 2008.

Please support the inclusion of this position in BOTH the city economic
development director in the city budget and the URA staff proposal.
Providing an Advisory Committee to work with the Director, composed of
representatives from LEDC, CEDA, the Chamber, and other stake holders to
help the City Council develop policy for economic expansion could answer
many of the concerns we citizens have about Council decisions concerning
economic development such as the one to advance the competition to Moscow
businesses by provision of water across the stateline. 

All the best,

Linda Pall

Former Moscow City Council Member

----- Original Message ----- 

From: B. J. Swanson <mailto:bjswan at moscow.com>  

To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:11 AM

Subject: [Vision2020] City Budget Hearings

Please mark your calendars and attend two City budget hearings this week:

·         Monday, Aug. 4, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers:  Moscow City
Budget Hearing

·         Thursday, Aug. 7, 7:00 AM, City Council Chambers:  Urban Renewal
Agency Budget Hearing

I am opposed to the continuing expansion of City government as demonstrated
by the $55 million budget.  According to The Daily News, the City budget
five years ago was $35 million.  That is a 9.5% annual growth rate.  I doubt
your income or budget have expanded at that high rate.  The budget includes
three new positions.  The proposed City Economic Development Director at a
cost of $86,000 is certainly redundant considering we already have the
Moscow Chamber of Commerce, Latah Economic Development Council, Clearwater
Economic Development Association and many local realtors.  In the difficult
economy we are experiencing now, this is not a good time to up-staff and
expand City government.  

The Urban Renewal Agency wants to increase administration to $30,000 and to
fund one-half of the $86,000 economic development director’s position.  The
URA wants to fund this expansion by using taxes from the Alturas Urban
Renewal District.  They also want Alturas to loan money to fund
administration of the Legacy Crossing Urban Renewal District.  Please tell
the URA not to do this.  Instead of up-staffing, increasing administration
and loaning funds to Legacy crossing, that money could be preserved to close
out the Alturas Urban Renewal Taxing District within two years and return
the approximately $300,000 annual tax revenue to lower the property tax
bills of all property owners in Moscow and Latah County.  If the URA
continues to use Alturas funds for Legacy Crossing, increasing
administration, etc., there will be no benefit to the property taxpayers
until 2016, if then.  The Urban Renewal Agency has not demonstrated prudent
financial management of previous projects including 200+% cost overruns on
completing Alturas Phase II and purchasing undeveloped land at developed
prices.   As another example, at the July 24 URA meeting, Pat Raffee, the
URA consultant said Beebe & Germer offered to sell the URA four acres in the
Legacy Crossing District for $20 million.  She said that was too high but
suggested the URA buy an option on it.   These examples do not give me
confidence in the URA’s management of our tax dollars.

I am not opposed to Legacy Crossing if it is properly managed.  It is highly
unlikely in these economic times that Legacy Crossing will be developed at
all in the near future.  Forcing some kind of development before its time
will only result in failure. URA consultant Pat Raffee estimated the first
project might be 2½  years away.  Again, now is not the time to up-staff and
add administration at the expense of property taxpayers.

The URA budget hearing is at 7:00 AM on Thursday, Aug 7.  The URA
Commissioners say they want public input on the budget, but the 7:00 AM
meetings are not well attended.  If you have an opinion on the budget,
please do attend the hearing or contact one of the URA Commissioners:

John McCabe,  john.p.mccabe at wellsfargo.com

John Weber, jweber at ci.moscow.id.us

Brandy Sullivan, brando at moscow.com

Robin Woods, rwoods at alturasanalytics.com

Stephen Drown, srdrown at uidaho.edu

Jack Nelson, jnelson at latah.id.us

Tom Lamar, lamar at pcei.org

These are very uncertain economic times.  With oil prices at record highs
and resulting high food prices, layoffs, etc., citizens are tightening their
budgets, the City and the URA should do the same.  Please tell them this is
not the time to increase staff and administration at taxpayer expense.

B. J. Swanson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080802/4631ce4d/attachment-0001.html 