As a member of the City Council, I am often encouraged by the
perspectives of those who consider ideas in different ways. I get a
chance to put my ideas forth in City Council meetings, and I think
it
’s important that others have forums for their ideas as
well.
As a member of the City Council, I am often encouraged by the perspectives of those who consider ideas in different ways. I get a chance to put my ideas forth in City Council meetings, and I think it’s important that others have forums for their ideas as well. However, when those ideas are ill-conceived or will have unintended negative consequences, I feel a responsibility to refute them. After reading the editorial in this paper last Friday regarding future community facilities, I am compelled to respond.
The editorial concerned our city’s ability to pay for the new community projects we’re building. After offering backhanded compliments on our progress to date, the paper noted, as though it was an original idea, that we must find a way to pay for these new recreation and community facilities.
Anyone who’s paid attention to our budget discussions, or our project discussions, knows that this idea is at the center of our consciousness. Every project we’ve undertaken includes detailed projections of revenue, expected shortfalls, and an outline of how we can absorb these added costs. But if the newspaper is perpetuating the myth that we’re not considering future costs, then I figure the citizens of this community are not getting the message either.
Here, then, is my attempt to assure the public that I, and the rest of the City Council, are considering future costs in all our planning.
Proper planning starts with an honest confrontation of reality. When we started planning the major civic projects that were identified in the visioning process this city undertook in the mid 1990s, we did our best to realize the cost of each project, the impact each would have on the others, and fundamentally the project’s ability to meet the needs identified by our community. Then, we factored in extraneous concerns like our ability to attract outside funding (as was the case with our library). We prioritized based on community need and the relative timelines of each project, and finally we factored in our ability to absorb the costs of each project in future years.
Not only is the City Council planning for the addition of these costs, but we also are busy identifying new revenue sources. We will, I anticipate, present these ideas to voters, and ask them to vote on the level of services and their interest in paying for these added services. If we can absorb these added costs, we will, but I am prepared to lay out the costs of these services, then abide by the will of the people regardless of their decision. Though we have been discussing additional revenue sources since the beginning of this process, this very important point apparently hasn’t penetrated the consciousness of the editorial writers, as they make no mention of this fact in their editorial.
Every project we identified was also assessed based in part on its relation to the other projects. When the paper embraced a last-minute idea to re-locate the indoor recreation center from its planned site on Edmundson to a new site adjacent to the aquatics center, they neglected to factor in a whole host of issues that would result from that decision. The projects would not generate the same revenue if co-located that they will if they are separate entities, they would delay, by several years, the development of either of these projects, they would necessitate the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars in redesign costs (not to mention the squandering of money that’s already been spent on design), and, most significantly, they would sacrifice services to our young people and seniors in an attempt to squeeze a few more dollars out of people who don’t live here. The young people who would benefit most from a Youth Center on Edmundson Avenue will not go all the way across town to a Youth Center that’s not near their home. I was accused of having a lack of vision when I opposed this idea, but I believe the true lack of vision comes from proposing an idea at the last minute without considering its consequences. It was discouraging to see The Times succumb to the same short-sighted conclusions.
I am glad The Times is engaging in local issues, and I encourage others to do the same. But I also caution them to do a little more homework before espousing short-sighted solutions to public policies that have evolved after much consideration and public input. By educating themselves, and thus their readers, The Times can help ensure that the solutions we develop are indeed the best for our community.
Greg Sellers is a Morgan Hill City Council member. He can be reached at se*****@ga****.com Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at wa***@mo*************.com or 779-4106.
Greg Sellers
