Rio Rancho in Focus

Oversight Needed Now More Than Ever

 By Mike Patrick
 3/31/2008  

I’ve harped on it for some time, and now it looks like the need for an independent oversight committee to oversee the SAD 7 project is greater than ever. In the March 28, 2008 Journal, a story on just how much money is being pumped to Wilson & Company for the new flood project described how the milking of the road paving cash cow has already begun. Several items stuck out in that story that must be addressed, so I thought I’d go over a few of the finer points of the article one by one:

1: What a Sweet Deal: The Journal reported: “The city has already paid Wilson $400,000 for engineering services related to the SAD. Wilson recently billed the city for an additional $477,000 for the SAD.”

Wow – this is a great deal for Wilson! Let’s see here: In its great wisdom, the city hires a company (without competitive bid) to not only design the new SAD, but to come up with the cost to complete the project. The same company (Wilson & Company) that’s putting the bid together is the company that will be paid a percentage off of that bid. Sound funny? Wilson’s initial estimate for the project came in at about 70 million. According to the article, engineering costs typically run around 10% of the total bill, so that’s a cool 7 million for Wilson just to plan the project. The current bill is approaching 1 million dollars, so Wilson is right on track for raking in the funds, and there hasn’t been one bit of SAD work done yet.

2: No Oversight: One of the ongoing issues with the City of Rio Rancho and how it traditionally deals with major money issues is that, to put it bluntly - it does whatever it wants to do. It answers to no one, and has appeared to be either unwilling, or unable to manage money in a responsible manner. One example is the impact fee investigation several years ago, in which impact fee funds sort of “disappeared”, and an independent audit was conducted only after public pressure was applied. It wasn’t clear what the audit committee found, or even if it ever existed at all. What was clear was that the official in charge of the funds suddenly left town and was never heard from again. We’re not aware of any public disclosure ever being issued.

Then there’s the well-known story of how Rio Rancho came to be in the first place, but that’s another issue altogether. The point is that with no independent oversight, all of us run the very real risk of funny business going on. We’ve not heard one person sitting in City Hall even hint at the formation of an independent committee to keep things honest. Maybe the new Mayor will see the need.

3: Unwilling, Unable, or Both? In the Journal article, Marilyn Salzman admitted that no one was keeping tabs on Wilson & Co. This is amazing, but not entirely surprising. This is historically how the City of Vision does business. When asked why Wilson was chosen as the engineering firm for the SAD project, we were told it was because that’s the engineering firm the city uses. Huh? Is that what we asked? Wow – no bid, no investigation as to how much other companies might charge to do the same job, and a lack of attention to the matter until the bill arrives. Unbelievable. It just begs for trouble.

4: Outrageous Statements: From the Journal article:  “Acting city engineer Scott Sensanbaugher explained that Rio Rancho has had previous smaller SADs and in each case, the consulting firm has done the engineering work first and received payment when the SAD bonds were issued. SAD7 is far larger— affecting nearly 5,000 properties— and the most controversial. Because of that, Sensanbaugher said, city staff decided to change that practice and budget $400,000 to pay Wilson to start the work because of the greater size and controversial nature of SAD7.”

What's that again? I thought I read SAD 7 is “controversial”, and “far larger” than previous SADs. Is that reason to lower policy standards (presumably policies that are in place to make sure impropriety doesn’t surface), and pay the engineering firm before the bond money arrives? Does that make sense? That's kind of like buying on credit before the credit's extended. Let’s change standard practice on how we disburse funds because we know that the issue is a hot and heated topic that has much resistance, and it's really big. Is that good management? It would seem to make sense that funds would be dispersed cautiously, or maybe not at all until the “controversy” was settled, or at least until you actually have the money to spend. No, we’re Rio Rancho – we do what we want to do. Maybe the city is so sure the money will be there, that it really doesn't matter.

5: Same old Attitude When it Comes to Your Money: This quote from the article really floored me: “City staff knew that Wilson's bill would eventually be substantially more than the $400,000 but the total was supposed to be covered by bonds, Sensanbaugher said.”  Hmmm, let’s see; since the project is going to be funded by bonds (essentially a loan to the project funded by taxpayers), we thought it acceptable to spend the money any way we wanted to. No big deal, and no accountability necessary. After all, it’s only bond money – right?

There are many residents throughout the City that have seen themselves as being disconnected from the  SAD. Some have very little sympathy for the residents who are struggling with the city on this issue, taking the stand that it’s the fault of property owners for moving into such areas. Well, welcome to SAD 7 folks. The city of Rio Rancho is freely using your money as well to fund at least the planning stages of the project, even if you have no direct involvement. You may live out of the affected flood areas, but your tax dollars are being spent on this issue. You’re in this whether you want to be or not. It’s all coming out of the General Fund right now.

The truth is that the 70 million dollar price tag for the SAD 7 project is most likely inflated. Some argue that paving isn’t needed, while the city claims it is. There’s a real danger in filling a pot with money that’s been received for a project that really doesn’t need to be done like road paving. Look out folks, and open your pockets wide. The road paving money pot is leaking.

 _______________________

Flood Review

3/3/2008

It's often the case that as time passes, we tend to cloud from our memory details of events that disturb us. We think that in the case of the flooding in 2006, this might be true. We've heard comments lately that some folks really believe that road paving will take care of the flooding issue. It appears that calls for major infrastructure being installed first before the paving is done to see if that will solve the problem have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears. To help make the case that it's flood control infrastructure, and not road paving that will really take care of the flood waters, we provide this video clip. Notice in the clip that the flood waters are not following the road coming down from the top of the hill to make it easy for us to control it. It appears that floods don't put much stock in roadways. The flood waters are generated from Northern Blvd., and make their way right through the middle of the neighborhood, right through properties that have ponding on them. Paved roads and storm drains would have done nothing to stop this kind of runoff. Also notice that the silt that is visible toward the end of the scene stretches across the entire width of the road. It flooded the homes on that side also, indicating that the flood water was much more intense and intrusive before the clip was taken. This clip is available on the Citizen Journal page, but we're putting it here for easy access to clarify our point. The video is an mpeg file. Enjoy.

Flood Clip (8mb.)

_______________________

Paved Roads or City Windfall?

2/15/2008

We have a question: how does splitting SAD 7 into two assessment districts do anything to solve the problem of the SAD 7 controversy? The more the issue drags on, the more apparent it becomes that the City of Vision is not only blind, but deaf, and the recent Council decision to allow work to proceed in certain areas but not others is just plain silly.

It couldn’t be clearer that most city residents who are up in arms about the flooding issue aren’t arguing that work needed to prevent flooding shouldn’t be done; they’re arguing about two major things: the proposed “solution”, and money. Now, it seems obvious to just about everyone except a select few that must have money to burn, that the cost involved to provide drainage and paved roads to those that don’t have them is enormous. Because of this, you naturally have people upset. But the questions that arise from such a move come from more than just people who don’t want to pay, and this is something the Council just can’t see.

Paving won’t get it done

We’ve said it before; the flooding issue will not be solved by paving roads. Paving adds tremendous cost to the SAD project. It's also hard to see how sewers will do anything to prevent flooding, but that's another story. This is not an issue of rain water overcoming makeshift dirt gutters and spilling over into yards. This is an issue of torrential flood waters running down Northern, cascading over side streets, rushing over hillsides, and wiping out homes. This is an issue of severe flood waters overcoming inadequate flood channels, and overcoming major roadways. This is an issue of weak code enforcement, and lack of policing. Residential road paving will have very little impact on future flooding. Paved roads would have done next to nothing to prevent the damage of 2006, and paved roads will do little or nothing to prevent future damage when we see that type of flooding again. The only thing paved roads will do is create a project that can be overcharged for, and they will provide an extra lining in the city coffers, and maybe a few pockets. Most of the real work that’s needed such as holding ponds, arroyo improvements and expansion, and added flood channeling is being provided by the Southern Sandoval County Arroyo Flood Control Authority (SSCAFCA), and the City has nothing to do with it. That work will proceed as needed with or without the City of Rio Rancho.

Large fee, no committee, big problem

The City of Rio Rancho has not yet provided justification for the large fees they want to charge to do the work that they say needs to be done. These charges are in the form of property liens, and run from $12,000 to $14,000 dollars per property owner in most cases. The City has run into stiff opposition for several reasons, and cost is not the only problem.

There has been no mention of an independent oversight committee to oversee the project, and you won’t hear the subject brought up by any of your government officials either — why? Because that could possibly muck up the flood waters (of cash) for the Council. We’ve seen this before. Just a few short years back, after Rio Rancho imposed impact fees on its citizens, residents began to question why improvements weren’t being done. Even today, much of the “rural” areas of the city have no parks, bike trails, and other impact fee type improvements. The City explained that impact fees weren’t for improvements such as residential roads. Fair enough. But the question of impact fees went further, and it was soon discovered that the City couldn’t account for the fees that had been paid. As time went on, the official that was in charge of the impact fees and their administration suddenly resigned, moved out of town, and an uproar started. Soon, an independent audit was conducted. Finally it was determined that the impact fees that had been collected for years were “lost” and unaccounted for. There never was (to our knowledge) an official statement made as to how the audit came out; so much for “open government” in Rio Rancho.

Now we have a Council that expects people to quietly swallow the 70+ million dollar price tag for road and drainage improvements without an oversight committee, and without a whimper. Those who oppose such a move are seen as troublemakers; but those that have lived here for awhile see the resistance as an appropriate response, and claim they have the battle scars to justify their reaction.

The City is responsible to do the work

No matter how much it wants to deny it, the City of Rio Rancho is responsible to see that internal infrastructure such as holding ponds, central drainage, and any other improvements that are necessary to protect life and property in the city gets done before building starts. It says so in the City Charter. This type of work usually gets done by developers when they build their tract developments, and this is by custom. Some work is done by the county. In any case, the City didn’t care about anything but revenue when it allowed indiscriminate development in rural areas, and this is where it's at fault. It had the authority and responsibility to make sure things were done right.

Councilors are being honest when they say that the City simply doesn’t have the money to make the improvements, but the problem is; neither do many of the citizens. How is the City relieved of its responsibility because it doesn't have the funds necessary to protect life and property as it's charged to do by its own policies?

Representative Jane E. Powdrell-Culbert just sent out a letter to her constituents explaining that she is seeking almost 14 million dollars to help out Rio Rancho on infrastructure funding, but our Council has done very little if anything to seek outside funding. Why?

If the City thinks it doesn’t have the money to fund the improvements it should have had done in the first place, wait until the law suits come. If SAD 7 proceeds as outlined, we predict lawsuits not only from the imposed fees, but future lawsuits as residents that do have the work done wake up, and begin to wonder why the paved road improvements they paid so dearly for don’t work to stop flooding. We also predict problems for the City as it tries to explain how commercial development it allowed that flooded citizens down stream should now be taken care of by the finances of the very citizens it did harm to.

We’re surprised the City Council doesn’t claim that street lights would also help stop the flooding – after all, it’s a good way to get work done for nothing, and would be a nice addition to the flood stopping sewers they plan to put in.

_______________________

No Owen Dynasty

By Mike Patrick

2/1/2008

Today’s Rio Rancho Journal (2-1-2008) ran an article on Jim Owen and his wife. It addressed the question of appearances with regard to the upcoming election. In this case, former Mayor Jim Owen is again running for Mayor, and his wife Rosemary is seeking a City Council seat. How ironic. The man that attacked former Mayor Kevin Jackson by citing an Open Meetings Act violation is actually running for office right along with his wife and is not batting an eye. How can this be? How can a man that fought so vigorously to have former Mayor Kevin Jackson removed from office because of the appearance of impropriety, have no problem with running for Mayor while his wife is running for Council? The answer is simple; Owen was chewing on sour grapes.

After being defeated by Kevin Jackson in the last run for Mayor, Jim Owen almost dropped out of sight. We’re not aware of any new issues Owen took on to “help” Rio Rancho while Jackson was in office. He never raised concerns over anything other than Jackson, and he did it with obvious anger. It might have been that Owen was so concerned for the position of Mayor and the welfare of our city, that he felt he just had to speak up when it looked to him like Jackson had done something illegal. I don’t think that was the case - for several reasons:

First, Owen had no business sticking his nose into any business the City was conducting. I’m still at a loss as to why this man thought his opinion counted for anything, and I'm even more amazed that anyone paid attention. Second, Owen was a very good friend of Jim Palenick, the former City Manager, and the guy Jackson was trying to remove. The whole thing looked like a friend helping a friend. Third, Owen had lost a bitter fight for the office of Mayor to Jackson, and his current bid for re-election speaks volumes as to his desire to continue as Mayor. It was in Owen’s best interest to try and remove the man that defeated him in the prior election before running again.

Now we have Jim Owen trying to see just how much he can get away with. It might be that he’s trying to see how stupid the residents of Rio Rancho are – I don’t know. It might be that he’s confident that if he and his wife can gain key positions in our government, they will be able to push through whatever they want - again, I don't know. It also may be that Owen is just power hungry, and likes attention – any kind of attention. If that means getting his name in the headlines by attacking Jackson, or running for Mayor while his wife seeks position on the City Council, so be it. The bottom line is that neither Jim Owen, nor his wife Rosemary appear to have any idea as to what looks proper, and what doesn’t. Even if there is no official directive in the City Charter addressing the issue of a husband and wife tag team in our city government, and even if Owen and his wife claim there's no problem with the two of them sitting together at dinner discussing city business, driving down together to vote on the issues, and then meeting together afterward at home over a cup of coffee to discuss what they did, there's still the unseemly appearance of impropriety. There's that uneasy feeling we’ll all get as important issues come up that need fair decisions, and then depending on the Owen team to make those decisions. Owen pointed out in the Journal article that this would not be a problem at all, because the Mayor only votes to break a tie. There have been many tie-breaking votes in the Council’s history. Usually tie votes occur over serious issues, and it’s just the kind of situation you don’t want to see Owen and his wife Rosemary have control over.

The bottom line is this: voting for the “Owen Team” is a bad idea. It looks bad, smells bad, and is just not the kind of thing a smart city would do. We need to insure things go smoothly, and not give the appearance of wrong doing. This is always important, but is even more important now given recent events. Let’s face it; there are too many good candidates out there for the upcoming election to even have to worry about the Owen team. Don’t let the fact that Jim Owen is telling everyone there would be no conflict of interest if he and his wife are elected fool you. There would be conflict – you can count on it.

_______________________

Be Careful What You Wish For

1-21-2008

We reported a year ago the problems that were taking place at City Hall. We let you know about the internal struggle between then City Manager Jim Palenick and then Mayor Kevin Jackson, and how tensions were escalating beyond the breaking point. Several months later, we were proven right, and the news hit the papers as Jackson booted Palenick right out of town. Well, we’re going to do it again, and this time the problem is not within the walls of City Hall, but with the warped reasoning, and lack of empathy of some of our government officials.

We’ve heard on good authority that the powers at City Hall are planning to provide SAD 7 opponents with a solution. This is after careful consideration following the Council meeting a few weeks ago. The solution that’s coming up and more than likely will be announced soon is evidently what some of the Council members feel is a pretty good idea, and it can be summed up in four words – “To hell with you.”

Sorry to be so blunt, but the buzz is that the soon to be proposed solution will be to tell you that you can "opt out" of the SAD 7 initiative if you like – but if you do, you’re on your own. Now, we want to make clear that this information is, as of right now - not official. It’s what we’ve heard from our inside sources – the same sources that allowed us to break the Palenick – Jackson feud before the Observer, Journal, or anyone else had any idea of what was going on. Take if for what it’s worth. We will say however that some of our elected, as well as hired officials have made the “Too bad for you – you chose to live there.” comments before. This action, if it should happen, shouldn't come as a great surprise. If the word from our city officials is "take a hike" to all those who have opposed SAD 7, we would hope that those in control don’t think that they’re off the hook, and need do nothing more to help flood victims.

The solution being discussed might seem reasonable to some of those on the Council (and others in charge), because they say they hear some residents claiming they actually want the SAD to take effect. They say they hear some people like the idea of being forced to pay for improvements they didn't ask for. The problem is that our city officials just don’t get it. If they think they'll be able to do something for some, and nothing for others, they’ve got another thing coming. If there's a division among residents, we didn’t hear much of the “We want the SAD!” crowd speaking up at the City Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. In fact, since the whole thing started, there have been barely a handful of folks going on record as wanting the SAD, and even fewer stating their approval after the SAD 7 cost estimates hit the mailboxes.

If the City is going to claim that we have a “some want it, some don’t” situation, the answer is simple – take a vote. After all, a vote is to be a part of every Special Assessment District process. It's even part of the American way of doing things. Is it that Rio Rancho government officials don't appear to feel the need to abide by accepted practices when forming a SAD? Maybe. It could be that they view doing what's right by the citizens with regard to SAD 7 in the same light they've viewed the emmenient domain issue. Special Assessment Districts are not unique to Rio Rancho, or even to New Mexico. A little research shows that voting is an integral part of the process, but here in the “City of Vision”, what’s accepted and practiced in nearly every other city and town in the country simply doesn’t matter. Our council is a group of cowboys dedicated to one thing only – revenue.

So, good luck to those of you who have voiced opposition to the SAD 7 project. The council just might take that as an “I don’t want any help at all” statement. If they do, those who are opposed to SAD 7 might be cutting themselves off from the badly needed aid they seek.

_______________________

Jim Palenick - How's He Doing Now?

1/14/2008

It's been awhile since we did a spot on Jim Palenick, Rio Rancho's former City Manager. We got to wondering how he's doing in his new job, after Kevin Jackson and the City Council let him go over a year ago. Even though it hurt Rio Rancho in the short term, it had to be done. We're still feeling the effects of Jim's shenanigans today.

Palenick almost pulled in Rio Rancho what he did in Bay City before being hired here. After they (Bay City) realized how much he was hurting their town, and they got a taste of his power tactics, they decided to let him go. He threatened to sue, leaving them no choice but to pay him a lot of money just to go away. He took it, fattened his bank account, and left for greener pastures. He did the same thing to Rio Rancho, and now he's set his sights on Gastonia N.C.. Now it's those folks who are starting to grumble and feel the pain of having hired Jim Palenick. Jim want's to make some big changes in Gastonia, and he's angering a lot of people in the process. It'll take time to see how those changes pan out, but if it works the way it did in Bay City and in Rio Rancho, those folks are in for a rough ride.

Jim Palenick continues to sell his ability to cities and towns across America, convincing them that he can do a good job, and accepting huge salaries after they bite; all the while collecting large sums of money from litigation, or threats of litigation that he leaves in his wake. Before you get angry at us, consider the facts. The record is clear that Jim Palenick ruins towns. Right now Rio Rancho is facing huge financial burdens because Palenick brought in businesses offering them huge tax breaks and other incentives. Much of the expected revenue from those deals has not materialized. Palenick started down the road of telling residents "Sorry but you're out of luck" with regard to the flooding issues this town has faced over the past two years, and Palenick brought with him his long-time friend John Kolesar who has chastised citizens publicly in the past for moving into un-improved areas with little sympathy for their problems. Palenick also caused such a stir as he left our town, that we now have no elected Mayor. We're all feeling the backlash of Palenick's presence, and we should remember his long time friend Jim Owen helped his cause. Owen angrily went to bat for Palenick, attacked then Mayor Kevin Jackson, and publicly reprimanded the current City Council members for "...not understanding what it means to be a City Manager." That brings up a point; if you're thinking of voting for Owen in the next Mayoral race, consider that he might not be able to work effectively with the City Council. That may be why his wife is running for a council seat. If she wins, he'd have at least one friendly voice in the crowd.

Sometimes it's good to look back so that we learn from the mistakes of the past. Hiring Jim Palenick was a mistake - a big one. But now we face some critical turning points for the City of Vision. Upcoming elections will determine what roads we travel down in the coming years, and this is a critical time for our city. Do we want to repeat mistakes of the past by letting power hungry city officials control our lives to the point of breaking our backs both financially and spiritually? We can make our government more accountable, by informing ourselves before hand, and this time we can take note of those who supported Jim Palenick, to see how we should move forward. Of course, the irony of it all is that Kevin Jackson, the guy that saw through the Palenick and Kolesar smoke screen is gone; run out of town by Palenick's friends, and just when we need leadership the most. Thanks Jim, thanks a lot.

________________________

Rio Rancho Residents Go Up Against Council

1/11/2008

By Mike Patrick

The City Council heard from over one thousand angry residents Wednesday night, but we’re not sure they were really listening. If they were, they sure didn’t hear praises for their recent behavior. The SAD 7 initiative is running into intense opposition from nearly everyone who is being impacted by it. Residents gave concerns  regarding higher taxes, doubts the SAD solution will work, the lack of an appointed independent oversight committee, and the fact that many will loose retirement and investment funds just because our City Council can’t properly figure out how to resolve the flooding issue.

It’s easy to see where the problem rests. It’s not that it’s a hard issue to resolve. Many residents gave very creative and thought provoking suggestions at the meeting. Some even went as far as to offer their services. One resident asked the Council if it realized how many professional and competent tax payers there are in the nearly five-thousand impacted citizens included in the SAD that are willing to help. All she got was a blank stare. Presumably this is because the Council never really intended to actually listen to, or answer the people. Wednesday’s public meeting was nothing but a formality.

I could go on giving the details of what went down, but you can get that (and probably already have) from the local news. The real problem is not money, or how to get it. The real problem is the attitude of the Council. It was unbelievable how the folks at the meeting were treated. Let me give a summary for the very few of you that weren’t there.

First, the venue was crazy. Even though the Council was aware that there were over a thousand people expected to attend, they kept the same meeting location – the Council Chambers at City Hall. That room holds just over six hundred people – not near enough for all who attended. The overflows were filled with those watching on television. The halls and lobby were packed. It was a mess, but the Council seemed to want it that way.

Then there was the air conditioning – it was turned on full blast, while the temperature was below freezing outside. This was very suspicious. There’s no better way to clear out a room, but the Council didn’t get what they were apparently after. Very few residents if any left because of the freezing temperature. The angry heat the crowd was generating was enough to keep themselves warm.

Continued...

________________________

City Council Juggernaut does it Again

1/5/2008

By Mike Patrick

Well, it looks like the unstoppable city council is at it again. This time, River’s Edge III residents are the victims. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for growth, but this is ridiculous. It’s getting harder and harder to live in a town where the same group of people keep making the same mistakes at the expense of the residents.

The Rio Rancho City Council has decided to take matters into its own hands with regard to a zoning change at the corner of 528 and Willow Creek Road. This zoning change request circumvents current city ordinance (see below), and the City Council doesn’t care. If plans proceed, the residents in that area will have a strip mall (or worse) right across the street from their homes; something they didn’t expect when they bought them. This in and of itself isn’t surprising, because towns need to grow, and it’s often the case where residents experience development pains because of it. But the Willow Creek case is notable because it involves several aspects that are, at the very least, troubling.

We’ve experienced this before. The City Council and Zoning Commission often work hand n’ hand to effectuate undesirable changes for neighborhoods. Here’s the common scenario:

1: Developers promise citizens when they move in that no commercial development will take place in their neighborhoods so that they can sell the house to them.

2: Citizens buy homes, live in them for some period of time, and then another developer buys the land next to their neighborhood – often seeking to build a commercial property, and often just feet away.

3: After purchase, the developer seeks to rezone the land from R1 (residential), to another classification – usually Commercial or Special Use.

4: The residents fight the zoning change – and usually win the first round with the Zoning Commission agreeing with the complaints the neighborhoods bring to the table; recommending no change in zoning. The Council agrees, and denies the developer's request.

5: Some time later the developer reappears, and re-submits the zone change proposal.

6: This time the Zoning Commission approves the change, and the Council also approves it, no matter what the residents say or do to prevent it. This often happens with little if any "new" information offered by the developer that would significantly change the original proposal.

It’s a play; a sort of “act” that is put on by the City Council, first to appease the citizens, and then for some reason (we’re not sure why), they reverse their decision in favor of the developer. It’s almost a script, with the appearance of behind the scenes negotiation going on between the Council and the developers - a kind of, “let’s look good for the residents the first time, but don’t worry, it will eventually turn your way” story. We can’t prove anything, but when it happens enough, you start to see a pattern. We saw the same thing at the corner of 528 and Northern a few years back with the same Council we have today voting to plop a proposed gas station smack dab in an residential neighborhood. There have been similar instances all through the town's history.

It’s not surprising folks. Currently we have a City Council that has two major problems in its lap that it doesn’t know how to handle. First, it has the issue of most of Rio Rancho being zoned R-1, which means there's almost no room for commercial development. Second, it has the problem of revenue. Rio Rancho’s economy is based almost exclusively on growth revenue. There’s virtually no industry or business income in this town and it makes most of its money off of commercial and residential development. Because of these facts, residents often pay the price.

What makes the Willow Creek case troubling is that the Council is simply ignoring city ordinance – and doing whatever it likes. There's currently an ordinance in place that prohibits any zone change in an area if the developer has not submitted a site plan for that development; in this case a Special Use zoning request (Ordinance 154.14). The Council has arbitrarily chosen to “wave” the requirement. Why? How can they even do this? Is it legal? Again, something smells fishy here. If it goes through, this will open the door for indiscriminate development becoming worse that it already is.

Folks, wake up. We’re living in a cowboy town that flies by the seat of its pants, with a renegade Council that needs to be removed. We can fight behavior like this, but it will take drastic action. First, the current city council must be removed. Vote them out! We really need to clean house here, and your chance is coming up soon. Second, we need to stand against those who break the law if we find them doing so.

The power the Council has had can only work if they act in separated instances. They cause a problem for one neighborhood at a time. It’s the old “divide and conquer” tactic – and it works. All of the neighborhoods need to band together, remove the current Council, and get to work to change the way the city generates revenue by encouraging industrial development, and by finding other ways to create income. As far as we know, the current City Manager and the City Council are doing very little to nothing to get this done, either because they're not capable, or simply resistant to the idea, or maybe they don’t even see the problem and how to fix it. In any case, it spells trouble for the citizens. Until we effectuate change, we can expect a lot more of this kind of activity. If you’re willing to live with it - get used to it. Otherwise, make the needed changes.

*The vote was not unanimous. To see the complete record of how the Councilors voted, visit the City website here: Council Vote