Salem Political Snark

Citizens strongly support Salem "Inclusive City" resolution. Conservative city councilors, not so much.

I hugely enjoyed watching a passionate parade of people testify in support of an Inclusive City resolution at last night's Salem City Council meeting. (An "Inclusive City" is a lot like a "Sanctuary City," but not quite, for reasons I'm unclear about.)
Download Resolution 2017-22

Councilor Cara Kaser said she counted 45 people who testified. I'm pretty sure only two opposed the resolution.

The rest talked forcefully and eloquently about the danger, fear, stress, anxiety, and uncertainty caused by President Trump's misguided efforts to build a wall and kick out undocumented Latinos who are already in this country, most of whom are productive, law-abiding members of society.

Here's a video I made of comments by two progressive city councilors, Tom Andersen and Cara Kaser, following the public testimony. As I put it in a Facebook post:

Andersen was moved (almost) to tears. Kaser spoke passionately about white privilege and solidarity with people of color. I found these remarks by two progressive city councilors most worthy of sharing.

The conservative councilors, including Mayor Bennett, mostly used their discussion time to emphasize that an Inclusive City designation just reiterated current City of Salem and State of Oregon policies about immigration issues. True, but they failed to appreciate how much the resolution meant to people-at-risk in these Trumpian times.

Andersen sponsored the resolution, and attempted to introduce a supplement to it that covers additional protected classes, such as language, gender identity, and sexual preference. But that got shot down. It sounded like he'll try to get the City Council to consider the supplemented resolution at a later meeting.
Download Supplement to Motion

The conservative city councilors -- Mayor Bennett, Brad Nanke, Jim Lewis, Steve McCoid -- pretty clearly were boxed-in by the overwhelming citizen support for Salem becoming an Inclusive City. As noted above, mostly their comments were along the lines of "This doesn't change existing City policies, but I'll vote for it anyway." 

I didn't hear much compassion and emotion in their words, in contrast to how Andersen, Kaser, and Sally Cook spoke about the resolution (the fourth progressive city councilor, Matt Ausec, didn't say much, as is his style).

Councilor Nanke's wife, Denise, tried to drum up opposition to the Inclusive City resolution via the Oregon Republican League Facebook page. (She co-hosts a right-wing radio talk show with Gator Gaynor.) That effort obviously flamed out, since only two people testified against it. But Denise Nanke did her best to rouse the conservative masses.

ACTION ALERT: Monday's Salem City Council meeting has an item on the agenda designed to set-up and trap law abiding citizens with a false narrative. Here is the verbiage that Ward 2 Councilor Tom Anderson will be proposing:

Adopt Resolution No. 2017-22 resolving that Salem is an Inclusive City that embraces, celebrates, and welcomes its immigrant and refugee residents and resolves that City funds, personnel, or equipment for the enforcement of federal immigration law is prohibited, and the provision of services or benefits by the City of Salem shall not be conditioned upon a residents federal immigration status, except as required by federal or state law.

I am asking that this be voted down and I am also asking you to attend the meeting to show solidarity with the councilor(s) who will vote no on this.

The left is mobilized and will be in attendance to support this resolution, if you support the rule of law in our city, I implore you to make your voice heard.

I wish I could have heard how the conversation went between her and Councilor Nanke after he voted for the resolution. 

Another conservative councilor, Jim Lewis, went on a mini-rant about how he got tons of emails urging him to vote for the Inclusive City resolution before he'd seen a copy of it. Many of the messages likely came as a result of a Causa Oregon action campaign.

Well, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for Lewis. Tom Andersen explained the timing of when he filed the resolution. My recollection is that Andersen said that other city councilors see a resolution that's part of a City Council agenda at the same time other citizens can view the agenda.

Namely, on the Thursday afternoon prior to a Monday meeting. Which I've found sometimes is Friday morning. So since us ordinary citizens don't have much time to review Salem City Council agenda items, it doesn't break my heart that Councilor Lewis found himself in the same position as everybody else.

It's tough, if not impossible, to predict a political future.

But the feeling I had, watching last night's meeting on the CCTV online stream, was that the four remaining conservatives on the City Council (their numbers are dwindling) were either clueless or shell-shocked at the progressive wave washing over them -- as immediately evidenced by the large vocal crowd demanding that the Inclusive City resolution be passed.

Mayor Bennett made a half-hearted attempt to enforce the Council rule against audience clapping, but after he spoke about this, nobody paid any attention. They kept clapping after hearing testimony they liked. Wisely, Bennett went along. 

To me, this was a sign of the changing times. No longer do Chamber of Commerce conservatives get to run this town. Sure, they're still trying to. I just feel that demographics, culture, and an intense dislike of Trump-style Republicanism is rapidly altering the balance of political power in Salem.

Last night the conservative members of the City Council had to go along with the unstoppable force of progressive public opinion, as manifested by the 43 outspoken people who testified during the public comment period.

Those conservatives did their best to minimize the meaning of the Inclusive City resolution, but I'm hoping a blog post by the Oregon Socialist Renewal folks is as prescient as it is well thought-out. Give "Salem City Council Passed The Inclusivity Resolution -- An All-Peoples' Victory Won Through Unity" a read.

Here's an excerpt.

Forty-some people testified tonight, most of them speaking in favor of the resolution. It was clear that the opposition either couldn't do turnout or failed if they tried. Moving testimony came from DACA youth, teachers, hospital workers, two small businesspeople and the leadership of PCUN, Causa and Salem's Racial Justice Organizing Committee. Council members Cara Kaser and Tom Andersen did especially well tonight in moving the resolution through the Council process. Andersen may offer amendments at an upcoming meeting.

No one said it tonight, but this victory builds towards the womens' mobilization on March 8, Causa's important March 31 lobby day, and May Day. This victory gives everyone who helped get the resolution through the responsibility of holding Council to the right path and electing Council members who will stand with immigrants, youth, workers and LGBTQIA+ people in the future.

Update: someone just sent me an audio file of right-wing Salem radio talk show hosts Gator Gaynor and Denise Nanke, wife of Salem city councilor Brad Nanke, going on a 10-minute rant about how outrageous approval of the Inclusive City resolution was. They even call the forty-some people testifying about it a "mob mentality." If you disagree, email them: [email protected] 

I uploaded the file to SoundCloud. Have a listen. (click on the orange arrow)

 

Why I'm urging a NO vote on the new Salem police facility plan

I'm a positive guy. My wife often says, "You don't worry enough." (She does much of my worrying for me, like whether I'm eating enough cruciferous vegetables.)

So I would have much preferred to say Yes to the second-try $62 million City of Salem police facility plan than No. 

But I can't do this.

Because I wouldn't be able to live with myself, and I'm not aware of any way to move out of my own mind.

I led the fight against Measure 24-399, the first-try $82 million plan that was defeated by voters last November. So it made sense that a Statesman Journal story in today's paper, "New Salem police facility price shaves about $20 million from previous ballot measure," would mention me briefly.

Councilors on Tuesday discussed pushing seismic upgrades for the Salem Public Library to a November vote.

“I hope ... there's a real understanding that no matter what happens with the police facility, the library is going out in November," Mayor Chuck Bennett said.

The move triggered backlash from local blogger Brian Hines, who was among those against last year's ballot measure.

"There will be organized opposition to the second-try bond measure," Hines said.

Though the correct implication here is that the organized opposition by me and other supporters of Salem Can Do Better is related to seismic upgrades for the Library, I want to lay out much more fully the reasons I'm opposed to the new $62 million police facility plan -- which, once again, omits funding for lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall.

Yes, this plan is improved from the first try.

Less expensive: $62 million rather than $82 million
Smaller: probably about 115,000 square feet rather than 148,000 square feet
But as I'll explain below, improved doesn't mean good enough to deserve a Yes vote.

Here's the main reasons why.

(1) The lives of people who work at or visit City Hall and the Library are still getting second-class treatment. Over and over during the campaign against Measure 24-399 I'd say, "If it is important to save the lives of Police Department staff when the Big One earthquake hits by moving them into a seismically-sound building, it is equally important to save the lives of everyone who works at or visits City Hall and the Library, including children at StoryTime." 

I'd use an image such as this to illustrate what I meant.

City Hall and the Library are going to collapse when the next massive Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits, which could be at any time.

Up until 2015 City officials planned to include seismic retrofitting of City Hall, and probably also the Library, in the budget for a new police facility. This made sense, since the Police Department currently is on the ground floor of City Hall, and the plan is to move other City employees into that same unsafe space after police employees move out.

But the new $62 million plan makes the same mistake the $82 million plan did: it calls for saving the lives of Police Department staff without asking at the same time for money to seismically retrofit the Library and City Hall. This is wrong. I argued against this in the fight against Measure 24-399, and I'll also argue against it in a campaign against the second-try bond measure. 

Here's a video I made last year about the earthquake issue. It explains why I feel so strongly that continuing to postpone seismic upgrades for the Library, especially, is so wrong-headed.

(2) Citizens agree that making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe should be part of a new police facility bond measure. If I was the only one deeply bothered by the prospect of children and other people being crushed to death at the Civic Center when the next Big One earthquake hits, I wouldn't have fought so strongly for seismic upgrades to these buildings being part of a second-try May bond measure.

But there's plenty of evidence that lots of others feel like I do.

Thus I consider that I have a duty to stand with them in opposition to the City's new $62 million police facility plan, since just as Measure 24-399 did, it omits money for lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall. 

Here's a video of my testimony at last Tuesday's City Council work session where I presented evidence about the importance Salem citizens put on seeking funds to make these buildings earthquake-safe at the same time voters are asked to approve a police facility PLAN B.

This is the first slide that I showed. It presents the results of an online survey that I put up on behalf of Salem Community Vision that got almost 400 responses in a short time. 

Two-thirds, 66%, of those who responded to the question of which police facility option they liked the most favored a plan that included seismic upgrades to City Hall and/or the Library. So much so, even a City of Salem $79 million plan for a new police facility and renovations to the Library that included seismic upgrades was preferred over two standalone police facility plans that cost much less.

Further, at the work session three city councilors spoke about how their constituents wanted these seismic upgrades to be part of a second-try police facility bond measure. Yet at the end of the video (see below) I made of their remarks, Mayor Bennett dismissively says that he doesn't believe making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe was a concern of voters.

Which makes me wonder what sort of a bubble he is living in. Pretty clearly, one that doesn't allow the voices of ordinary people in our community to be heard.

(3) Four city council conservatives blocked an attempt by the four progressive councilors to consider a police facility plan that included seismic retrofitting of the Library. I don't like how divisive politics in our country has become. But this is a fact of life. It just is especially disturbing when good ideas get squashed at our local level on a party-line basis. 

Such happened at last Tuesday's City Council work session when a motion to include seismic retrofitting of the Library as part of a 115,000 square foot police facility plan failed on a 4-4 vote (one council seat is vacant until a special election is held in March to replace Daniel Benjamin, who resigned last year).

This screenshot of the CCTV video of the work session shows the progressive councilors -- Matt Ausec, Sally Cook, Cara Kaser, Tom Andersen -- raising their hands in support of that motion. The council conservatives -- Jim Lewis, Steve McCoid, Brad Nanke, Chuck Bennett -- said NO to the Council even considering asking voters for money to make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe in a May police facility bond measure election. 

Here's how I described what happened in a Facebook post.

Last night the four conservative members of the City Council -- Mayor Bennett and councilors McCoid, Nanke, and Lewis -- blocked a motion supported by the four progressive members -- Andersen, Kaser, Cook, Ausec -- to ask for money to make the Library earthquake-safe in a May bond measure that also would include funds for a new police facility.

The clips in this video [see above] I made of the council work session show how out-of-touch Mayor Bennett is with community opinion about saving the lives of EVERYBODY at City Hall and the Library when the Big One earthquake hits, not just the lives of Police Department staff (who would move to a seismically-sound building if the bond measure passes this time; Measure 24-399 failed last November).

Sadly, after the conservatives blocked an excellent proposal to broaden appeal for the new bond measure by including money for seismic retrofitting of the Library as most people in this town clearly want (I'll demonstrate this soon in a blog post), the City Council decided to move ahead with a plan for only a $62 million police facility.

I and others had urged them to make the Library earthquake-safe for just $10 million more so children and other people won't be crushed to death in the next Cascadia Subduction Zone quake. But the conservatives rejected this common sense idea, worrying more about how out-of-state municipal bond investors might view a measure that included money for both a new police facility and seismic retrofitting of the Library.

(An unwarranted worry, according to testimony by City of Salem financial staff, but facts don't matter much to some city councilors.)

Which shows how-out-of-touch with both reality and Salem's citizens the right-wingers on the City Council are. I'm urging a NO vote on the May bond measure because, once again, Salem can do better than the plan that will be put before voters.

It simply isn't right to pit the Library against the Police Department. Both are vitally important to the people of Salem. The buildings housing each of these services need to be earthquake-safe. Favoring Police employees over Library staff/visitors was a big part of the reason voters rejected Measure 24-399.

You'll hear Councilor Kaser say in the video, "I've also heard people say, I will not support a a bond -- I do support the police -- if there is not seismic to the Library at the very least."

I feel the same way. It's good that a smaller, less expensive police facility plan will be submitted to voters as a substitute for Measure 24-399, but the absence of seismic retrofitting for City Hall and the Library is a deal breaker for me and many others.

The City Council plans to put a separate Library seismic bond on the November 2017 ballot, but it likely will compete against other local measures such as a school bond. And Councilor Nanke kept emphasizing last night that the City Council can always change its mind, so there is no guarantee that either a Library bond measure will be voted on in November, nor that it would pass.

So I'm recommending a NO vote in May. Then the City Council can do what it should have done last night: approve a police facility proposal that includes funds for at least seismic retrofitting of the Library, and ideally City Hall also.

Again, the lives of EVERYBODY who works at or visits the Civic Center are equally worth saving. Protecting Police Department staff shouldn't be prioritized over the lives of children at StoryTime when the Big One hits.

(4) Resolving to put a bond measure for Library seismic upgrades on the November ballot is a face-saving effort that voters shouldn't be fooled by. If City officials really cared about saving lives at City Hall and the Library when the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits -- could be tomorrow, because no one knows exactly -- they'd make this a funding priority.

But both seismic upgrades to the Civic Center buildings and routine maintenance/upkeep have been ignored for decades. Now the City of Salem is saying that $44 million is needed to pay for this work.

Note that seismic retrofitting is only about $20 million of the roughly $44 million total. So taxpayers need to hold onto their wallets. They're going to be asked to pay extra for deferred maintenance of City Hall and the Library that should have been part of regular operating budgets over the years. 

And more City of Salem bond measures totaling over $300 million are in the works for coming years. Here's a possible schedule for them.

City officials have been letting the Civic Center buildings fall apart because they kept choosing to spend money on other stuff rather than maintaining what taxpayers have already paid for. So if a $15 million bond for "Library seismic upgrades" is put on the November ballot, actually it would include about $7 million for repairs to the building. 

And what about fixing City Hall? That's another $29 million, most of which would also go for deferred maintenance  and renovations, not seismic upgrades. 

So there are good reasons to be skeptical of Mayor Bennett's statement in today's Statesman Journal story: “I hope ... there's a real understanding that no matter what happens with the police facility, the library is going out in November."

For one thing, Councilor Nanke repeatedly pointed out at the Tuesday work session that the City Council could change its mind about a Library bond measure. Politicians change their minds all the time.

For example, on February 13 the City Council voted unanimously to separate consideration of a police facility bond measure from a seismic upgrades bond measure. Yet partway through its February 21 work session the City Council had the above-mentioned 4-4 vote on combining these into a single bond measure, so four councilors changed their minds over eight days. Then, in the same meeting there was a unanimous vote to split the police facility and seismic upgrade bond measures again.

So, yes, the City Council could certainly change its collective mind. City councilors frequently change their individual minds.

The deadline for removing a City of Salem bond measure on the November 2017 ballot is the first part of September, based on a 2016 memo. Thus voters can't be sure that a Library bond measure for seismic upgrades will be on the November ballot until the deadline for removal passes in September. 

Further, what if the May $62 million standalone police facility bond measure fails? One plausible scenario is that City officials realize that their best bet now is to do what should have been done before: combine funding for a new police facility and seismic upgrades to City Hall and/or the Library into a single bond measure that would have more appeal to voters.

Since it would be foolhardy to ask voters to approve a third bond measure after just another six months, it would make sense to put a third-try police facility plus seismic upgrades bond on the November 2018 ballot, at the earliest. So even though Mayor Bennett said "no matter what happens with the police facility, the library is going out in November," this might not happen.

Anyway, I've given four reasons I'm opposing the new $62 million police facility plan. I have more reasons, but those can wait for another blog post.

(Can't resist adding... in this age of Twitter, I realize that a 2,500 word blog post such as this one seems outrageously long. Well, I'm old enough to remember when lots of people actually read lengthy articles about important subjects if it took that many words to say what needed to be said. I still subscribe to the New Yorker, as I have for most of my life. If you think this blog post is long, read the New Yorker, which remains a marvelous source of great writing and excellent information.) 

I'm trying to stop the City Council from making a big mistake on a new police facility plan

Here's a little 2,000 + word message, which some might call a rant, that I just emailed to Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, Police Chief Moore, city councilors, and other City of Salem officials. 

I'm trying to help them understand why what the City Council seems poised to do about a PLAN B for a new Police Department headquarters is the wrong way to go. This is one blunt part of my message:

IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that the John Hawkins-led group, mostly composed of conservatives and “Powers That Be” types, recommended at the previous Council work session that a proposal for a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of the Library be put on the May ballot. Similarly, Salem Community Vision has recommended a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of both the Library and City Hall. 

Further, currently the results of Facebook and Survey Monkey online polls that I publicized on behalf on Salem Community Vision are showing that about 2/3 of respondents favor a plan for the May ballot that includes a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of City Hall and/or the Library. 

So if the City Council chooses a different plan, citizens will be justified in concluding that City officials are living in a “City Hall bubble” and not listening to the community — since it is clear that conservatives, liberals, and people in-between/other strongly favor a PLAN B police facility proposal that includes seismic retrofitting. 

The City Council is meeting tomorrow (Tuesday, February 21, 6 pm)  in a work session to discuss police facility options. Hopefully they will do the right thing rather than the wrong thing, but I'm getting increasingly pessimistic this will happen.

Hence, this last-ditch attempt to help the Council realize that the plan they seem to be favoring will encounter strong organized opposition and has a much lower chance of being approved by voters than a plan with broad community support. 

Email the City Councilors and other City officials if you agree with what I say at the end of this message: [email protected]

There. I’m done. It took more than 2,000 words to say what I needed to say. Now it is up to City officials, notably including the City Council, to consider what I’ve said — which I believe reflects the view of most people in Salem who are familiar with this issue. Which is...

Pare down the cost of a 115,000 square foot police facility as much as possible to show that you have heard the message from the defeat of Measure 24-399 that the previous plan was too large, too expensive, and cost too much per square foot compared to other recently-built Oregon police facilities. 

Include money to seismically retrofit at least the Library to show that you have heard the message that “If it is important to save the lives of Police Department employees when the Big One earthquake hits, it is equally important to save the lives of EVERYONE who works at or visits City Hall and the Library.”

Make an iron-clad commitment to put another bond measure for renovations to City Hall, both seismic and other, on the November 2017 ballot. This measure could include money for deferred maintenance and repairs to the Library that aren’t seismically-related.

------------------------

DATE: February 20, 2017

TO: Mayor Bennett, City Councilors, City Manager Powers, Police Chief Moore, and other City of Salem officials

FROM: Brian Hines

RE: Analysis of the 115,000 square foot police facility proposals from the City of Salem and Salem Community Vision, with the goal of finding common ground and a consensus on a PLAN B May bond measure

I’m submitting this as advance testimony for the February 21 City Council work session on the police facility. 

My hope is that these ideas will stimulate some productive thinking and discussion prior to, and at, this meeting, as the work session will be a pivotal moment for the Council as it decides how (and whether) to move forward with a new police facility bond measure plan that could be put before voters in a May 2017 election. 

I want to stress that I’m writing this on my own. Yes, I'm a member of the Salem Community Vision steering committee, but this message is personal from me. 

I’m also a leader of Salem Can Do Better, which was the organized opposition to Measure 24-399, the original police facility bond measure. Again, this message is personal from me and shouldn’t be taken as a firm sign of how Salem Can Do Better will view a new bond measure.

(As discussed below, that depends on what a new bond measure consists of, which obviously hasn’t been determined yet.)

My central theme is this:

The proposals from the City of Salem and Salem Community Vision for a smaller and less expensive 115,000 square foot police facility really are not all that far apart. Differences between them can be bridged, resulting in a community consensus that would markedly increase the chance of a May PLAN B ballot measure being approved by voters. 

Here is the current Salem Community Vision (SCV) proposal, which is a modification of the City of Salem (City) plan prepared by the DLR Group and CB Two architects. I realize that Geoffrey James, an architect on the SCV steering committee, has met with City staff and consultants, and will be talking again with them on Tuesday.
Download POLICE+SEISMIC REVISED COST 2 02-13-2017

But since my understanding is that neither SCV nor the City has changed their figures in the document above, my analysis uses those numbers. Which, for a 115,000 square foot police facility alone total to $64 M (million) for the City plan, and $46 M for the SCV plan. I’m rounding to the nearest million, as I will do pretty much throughout this analysis for clarity.

I’ll now work my way step by step through a look at these numbers. Note that at first I’m only talking about a new police facility, not seismic retrofitting of City Hall and/or the Library. That discussion will come later.

(1) There is an $18 M difference between the City and SCV plans ($64 M minus $46 M). 

(2) Three budget items account for virtually all of that $18 M difference:

General construction (A, B, C) on image above — $9 M
Escalation and Contingency — $7 M
Development costs — $2 M

These total to $18 M. 

Other budget items such as Fixtures, Furniture, and Equipment basically move up or down with the overall budget; thus they are important, but only account for about half a million of the $18 M difference between the City and SCV plans, essentially a rounding error when the numbers are expressed to the nearest million.

(3) The most contentious issue is the $9 M difference in General Construction. In part this is explained by the SCV plan using a $270 per square foot construction budget target, while the City plan uses a $299 per square foot construction budget target. This $29 difference ($299 minus $270) arises from the City’s claimed additional cost for special program requirements: Crime Lab, SWAT, Special Teams. 

As noted above, the construction budget consists of items A + B +C in the image above. This information, plus a cost analysis of the Beaverton facility prepared by City consultants in the middle column of the image below, allows for a construction cost per square foot comparison between the 115,000 square foot City and SCV plans, and the Beaverton plan approved by voters there last November.

The City plan has a construction budget of $40.0 M, which includes an expensive parking structure. This results in a construction cost per square foot for the City plan of $348 ($40 M divided by 115,000 square feet). The SCV plan has a construction budget of $31.2 million. The parking structure is reduced from 100 stalls to 50 stalls This results in a construction cost per square foot for the SCV plan of $272. The Beaverton plan has a construction budget of $25,300,000. Given the police facility size of 90,000 square feet, this results in a construction cost per square foot for Beaverton of $281. 

Note the $67 difference in the square foot construction cost between the City plan and Beaverton. This is much greater than the claimed $29 difference due to Salem’s special program requirements. The parking structure and other additional costs in the City plan are the reason for this.

(4) I’m going to leave aside the question of whether the $29 additional cost per square foot due to “special program requirements” for construction of the police facility in the City plan is justified. Basically, SCV asserts that regardless of these requirements a Salem police facility can be built for about the same construction cost per square foot as a new Beaverton police facility by reducing costs in other budget items — both within the Construction area (such as reducing the size of the parking structure) and in other areas discussed below.

(5) So while the City Council needs to closely look at the $9 M difference in General Construction costs between the City and SCV plans, I want to focus on the “low hanging fruit,” so to speak: the other $9 M difference in Escalation, Contingency, and Development costs.

(6) Seemingly this is a place where the differences between the City and SCV plans can be minimized, if not eliminated. SCV uses the Beaverton figure of 5% for contingency, and reduces escalation from 9.18% to 3.5% by assuming a design-build contract is executed within 6 months. And the SCV reduction in Development assumes a 1% cost reduction (12.75% from 13.75%) by eliminating out-of-state consultants and hiring the Beaverton architect on an hourly basis to advise local architects.

(7) Thus while $9 M of the $18 M difference between the City and SCV police facility plans, the General Construction budget, is rather difficult to reach a consensus on, the $9 M cost reduction in the SCV budget by reducing the cost of Escalation, Contingency, and Development appears to be much easier to reach an agreement on.

(8) For the purpose of this analysis, I now assume that the City budget for a new police facility is reduced by $9 M to $55 M ($64 M minus $9 M). This brings me to the question of seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library, which is budgeted at $20 M in the SCV plan.

(9) That $20 M is only for actual seismic retrofitting to make these buildings earthquake-safe for people in them when the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits, a matter of when, not if. The $44 M in the City budget for renovations to City Hall and the Library includes a lot of money (about $24 M) for repairs, deferred maintenance, and improvements unrelated to seismic retrofitting. 

(10) At the February 21 work session I plan to testify about the moral and “political” (using that word in a broad sense) reasons to include seismic retrofitting in a potential May PLAN B police facility bond measure. This would make the measure significantly more likely to pass, since evidence shows that saving lives via seismic retrofitting is desired by most citizens. 

(11) Here is where things begin to get tricky, because the SCV plan is $66 M for both a 115,000 square foot police facility ($46 M) and seismic retrofitting of the Library and City Hall ($20 M). Without any cost reduction the City plan would be $84 M for both — $2 M more than the $82 M bond measure rejected by voters. 

And even with the above-mentioned $9 M cost police facility cost reduction, the City plan would be $75 M for both ($55 M for the police facility; $20 M for seismic retrofitting).

(12) A new bond measure of either $84 M or $75 M would be uncomfortably close to the $82 M cost that was turned down in the November election. 

This is why the $66 M SCV plan is appealing: it gets the total cost into the 60 M range, and it includes an attractive extra that wasn’t part of Measure 24-399: saving the lives of visitors/employees at City Hall and the Library by seismically retrofitting the buildings — which also takes away an argument used against the $82 million bond measure: 

“If it is important to save the lives of Police Department staff by having them in an earthquake-safe building, it is equally important to save the lives of everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library.”

(13) So the wisest approach would be to submit a $66 M plan to voters that includes money for both a new 115,000 square foot police facility and seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library. I feel the SCV plan has the best chance of being approved by voters. 

(14) However, the City Council may want to discuss a fallback plan. In that case, here’s a suggestion. Again, I emphasize that this is my personal opinion, not the position of Salem Community Vision or Salem Can Do Better.

(15) Assuming the City plan for a new police facility was reduced from $64 M to $55 M (lower would be better, but I’m assuming just a $9 M reduction), as noted above this would put the cost of a bond measure that included seismic retrofitting of both City Hall and the Library at $75 M ($55 M plus $20 M). 

(16) Alternatively, only seismic retrofitting of the Library could be included in a May bond measure. If this is assumed to cost about $10 M (City budget for Library seismic retrofits is $6.5 M), the bond measure would be $65 M ($55 M plus $10 M). This should appeal to voters, since so many people like and use the Library, and the prospect of children at Storytime being crushed to death was used effectively by opponents of the previous bond measure (such as me).

(17) Thus for only $1 M more than the current $64 M City plan for a new 115,000 square foot police facility alone, voters could be presented with a $65 M bond measure that includes money for a police facility AND making the Library earthquake-safe. 

(18) The $65 M cost to do this is pleasingly lower than the $79 million cost of the police facility + library renovations option that the City has presented, since it is based on a $9 M reduction in the cost of the police facility and a $5 M reduction in the City’s $15 M budget for Library renovations by excluding items unrelated to seismic retrofitting. 

(19) Those other items — repairs, deferred maintenance, and improvements — should be funded outside of a May police facility bond. Including them would muddy the waters of a public safety proposal that consists of money to move the Police Department to a seismically-safe building and also seismically retrofit the Library. (Ideally City Hall also, but Library-only would be the back-up plan.)

(20) City Hall retrofitting is more complicated, so there are decent reasons to postpone asking citizens for money to do this until a November 2017 election. The original City police facility plan (for a building on the Civic Center campus) included funds to both seismically retrofit and remodel City Hall. But that renovation plan would take time to review, update, and get citizen input on.

(21) IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that the John Hawkins-led group, mostly composed of conservatives and “Powers That Be” types recommended at the previous Council work session that a proposal for a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of the Library be put on the May ballot. Similarly, Salem Community Vision has recommended a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of both the Library and City Hall. 

Further, currently the results of Facebook and Survey Monkey online polls that I publicized on behalf on Salem Community Vision are showing that about 2/3 of respondents favor a plan for the May ballot that includes a 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismic retrofitting of City Hall and/or the Library. 

(22) So if the City Council chooses a different plan, citizens will be justified in concluding that City officials are living in a “City Hall bubble” and not listening to the community — since it is clear that conservatives, liberals, and people in-between/other strongly favor a PLAN B police facility proposal that includes seismic retrofitting. 

Here’s a screenshot of the current Facebook survey results (275 responses so far). The $66 M SCV plan is favored by 54% and 13% favor the $79 M City plan. So over two-thirds, 67%, favor a police facility plan that includes seismic retrofitting of City Hall and/or the Library. The two standalone police facility plans are only favored by 7% of respondents.

(23) Remember that, as I recall, the DHM polling consultant said, prior to the November election, that the $82 million bond measure needed about 60% support prior to the election and would fare best with no organized opposition. 

(24) Given the Measure 24-399 results, you’re basically starting out at 48% support. (See screenshot below.) And you’re facing the headwinds of breezes such as “Didn’t we just vote on this?”, “This is still too expensive,” and “I’m so irritated at politicians these days I’m voting no on them wanting more money for anything extra they want to do.” 

(25) Also, if the City Council ends up putting a PLAN B bond measure on the May ballot that doesn’t include seismic retrofitting of at least the Library, there WILL be organized opposition to the measure this time also. That’s virtually guaranteed. Because I would do the organizing. I feel strongly that saving lives of employees and visitors to the Civic Center is much more important than, say, padding the police facility budget with excessive Escalation and Contingency costs.

There. I’m done. It took more than 2,000 words to say what I needed to say. Now it is up to City officials, notably including the City Council, to consider what I’ve said — which I believe reflects the view of most people in Salem who are familiar with this issue. Which is...

Pare down the cost of a 115,000 square foot police facility as much as possible to show that you have heard the message from the defeat of Measure 24-399 that the previous plan was too large, too expensive, and cost too much per square foot compared to other recently-built Oregon police facilities. 

Include money to seismically retrofit at least the Library to show that you have heard the message that “If it is important to save the lives of Police Department employees when the Big One earthquake hits, it is equally important to save the lives of EVERYONE who works at or visits City Hall and the Library.”

Make an iron-clad commitment to put another bond measure for renovations to City Hall, both seismic and other, on the November 2017 ballot. This measure could include money for deferred maintenance and repairs to the Library that aren’t seismically-related.

I look forward to hearing your discussion at tomorrow’s work session and responding to any questions you might have about this message and the other testimony I’ll be presenting at the work session.

Brian Hines

 

Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC late on filing penalty for late filings

A sharp-eyed citizen who, like me, loves political irony sent me this screenshot of a transaction filed by the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC. This is public information available by searching the Secretary of State's ORESTAR system.

As noted in red, on January 18, 2017 the Create Jobs PAC filed a transaction report about a $60 payment to the Secretary of State for penalties assessed against the Create Jobs PAC for late filings. These penalties totaled $4575.05, as reported in a February 7 Statesman Journal story, "Chamber of Commerce-backed PAC hit with campaign finance violations."

A political action committee backed by the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce has been fined thousands of dollars by the state for breaking campaign finance rules, though the committee has since paid those penalties off.

The Create Jobs PAC has been fined more than $4,000 for often filing its records improperly and late. The similar Build Jobs PAC has been cited, too. It hasn't had to pay, because its fines all fall under a $50 threshold an Oregon Secretary of State spokesman says "the elections division does not process."

The delicious irony comes from the fact that the due date for reporting the $60 check that was written on December 12, 2016 was thirty days later, January 11, 2017. But the Create Jobs PAC transaction was posted on ORESTAR on January 18, a week late.

So the Chamber's Create Jobs PAC was late on filing a penalty payment assessed by the Secretary of State for making late filings. Lovely irony!

Why "regret" is key to passing a new Salem police facility bond measure

Along with my Salem Community Vision colleagues, I'm an avid supporter of the plan SCV released at last Monday's City Council meeting for a new $66 million bond measure that includes $46 million for a 115,000 square foot police facility, plus $20 million for lifesaving seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library.

Now, there are other PLAN B options that will be considered by the City Council at a February 21 work session.

There's been quite a bit of talk among some councilors that making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe shouldn't be part of a new police facility bond measure, because the lack of this seismic retrofitting supposedly wasn't a factor in the defeat of Measure 24-399, the original $82 million bond measure for a 148,000 square foot police facility that was defeated by voters last November. 

So an option being considered by these councilors is to put a reduced cost/size police facility plan on the May 2017 ballot, delaying a vote on a bond to seismically retrofit the Civic Center buildings until November 2017.

This would be a big mistake. (I'm so confident about this, I put it in boldface.)

Here's my reasons.

First, I led the fight against Measure 24-399. I wrote all of the "Vote No" materials. I spoke at most of the meetings where the bond measure was debated. I designed a Salem Can Do Better web page. And I handled the Facebook campaign that urged a no vote on the $82 million plan. Thus I have a good feel for what arguments resonated with voters, and which didn't. 

People certainly were concerned about the excessive size and cost of the proposed police facility. However, a highly compelling argument used the "pro" campaign's Keep Salem Safe slogan against them.

I'd point out that actually Measure 24-399 only made Police Department employees safer, because they would be moved out of the ground floor of  City Hall -- a building that will almost certainly collapse when the next Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits (a matter of when, not if) -- into a new police facility built to modern seismic standards.

Then I'd say that other City employees will be moved into the same City Hall space, so they now will be the ones who will be crushed to death under tons of rubble. "If it is important to save the lives of Police Department staff," I'd argue, "it is equally important to save the lives of everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library, including children at Storytime."

The Facebook posts I wrote on this theme proved that earthquake safety was a central concern of voters. When I'd write something logical about the excessive cost and size of the police facility, a post would get a Facebook yawn, so to speak. Just a few comments, likes, and shares. 

However, if I put up a post about the need to save lives of people at City Hall and the Library by making seismic retrofitting of these buildings part of a public safety/police facility plan, the response would be hugely greater. Here's an example. This is a screenshot of an October 2016 post on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page.

And this is a screenshot of the responses to the post. Only the page administrator, me, can see how many people were contacted both by the "organic" unpaid reach, and the "boosted" paid reach -- which together totaled 19,159 Facebook users on just this post alone, in large part because 91 people shared the post with their Facebook friends.

So I know that making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe is of great concern to people in Salem. Based on my experience fighting Measure 24-399, I'm convinced that voters were as bothered by the lack of seismic retrofitting for these buildings in the bond measure, as they were bothered by the excessively high cost and size of the $82 million, 148,000 square foot police facility.

Why?

Well, this is a tough question to answer, because the dynamics of human emotions and cognition are still largely a mystery. Why we do what we do, feel as we feel, and think as we think is almost as much of an art as a science.

Researchers are making a lot of headway in understanding how our minds work, though. Clearly, we are not Spock-like highly rational beings who cooly assess arguments and evidence, then make a logical decision. Not about how to vote on a ballot measure. Not about anything.

I've read lots of neuroscience and psychology books about this subject, including Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow." Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research into the non-logical, non-quantitative ways we humans view the world and decide what to do. This morning I was reading a chapter in a book by Michael Lewis about Kahneman and his associate, Amos Tversky, "The Undoing Project."

Here's a passage that describes what Kahneman and Tversky set out to undo.

By the summer of 1973, Amos was searching for ways to undo the reigning theory of decision making, just as he and Danny had undone the idea that human judgement followed the precepts of statistical theory. On a trip to Europe with his friend Paul Slovic, he shared his latest thoughts about how to make room, in the world of decision theory, for a messier view of human nature.

Later in the chapter, Lewis describes some experiments where people are asked to choose between two situations that involve different chances of winning various amounts of money. I'll leave out the details of the choices and jump to the conclusions.

Danny [Kahneman] wasn't inclined to see the paradox as a problem of logic. It looked to him like a quirk in human behavior. "I wanted to understand the psychology of what was going on," he said. He sensed that Allais himself hadn't given much thought to why people might choose in a way that violated the major theory of decision making.

But to Danny the reason seemed obvious: regret. 

In the first situation people sensed that they would look back on their decision, if it turned out badly, and feel they had screwed up; in the second situation, not so much. Anyone who turned down a certain gift of $5 million would experience far more regret, if he wound up with nothing, than a person who turned down a gamble in which he stood a slight chance of winning $5 million [note: and also a slight chance of winning $25 million].

If people mostly chose option 1, it was because they sensed the special pain they would experience if they chose option 2 and won nothing. Avoiding that pain became a line item on the inner calculation of their expected utility. Regret was the ham in the back of the deli that caused people to switch from turkey to roast beef.

...Happy people did not dwell on some imagined unhappiness the way unhappy people imagined what they might have done differently so that they might be happy. People did not seek to avoid other emotions with the same energy they sought to avoid regret.

When they made decisions, people did not seek to maximize utility. They sought to minimize regret. [emphasis in original]

After I read these passages this morning, I was blown away by how closely this reflected both my own feelings about the Salem police facility plan, and why I believe many voters said "no" to Measure 24-399.

For several years I've testified numerous times at different sorts of hearings about the need to seismically retrofit City Hall and the Library, so I'm more tuned in to this issue than most people. One of my conscious motivations is how much it would bother me if the Big One earthquake hits before these buildings are made earthquake-safe and people inside die, trapped under massive chunks of collapsing rubble.

Knowing of this danger, I would feel massive regret for the rest of my life if I didn't feel that I did everything I could to prevent that from happening. And I'm virtually 100% certain that many voters felt the same way, albeit in their own personal fashion. 

Recognizing (because I and others told them) that the City of Salem originally planned to include money to seismically retrofit at least the Library, and maybe also City Hall, in a police facility bond measure, but the seismic upgrades were dropped after the size and cost of the planned police facility doubled, I'm convinced that voters knew that a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399 was an endorsement of leaving people who work in or visit the Civic Center buildings at high risk of dying in the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake.

And the same feeling, the same knowledge, will hold true in a May 2017 second-try bond measure election if City officials once again omit money for seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library.

Yes, the City Council has talked of putting a police-facility-only bond on the May ballot, and a Civic Center seismic retrofitting bond on the November ballot. But this plan stands a good chance of failing, because of the regret issue. 

Lots of people want the Salem Police Department to have a new police facility. Lots of people want City Hall and the Library to be earthquake-safe. It simply makes sense to have all of these people voting "yes" for a bond measure that accomplishes both goals. If seismic retrofitting is put off, the regret card still comes into play.

I and others will think: "There's no guarantee a separate November bond measure for seismic upgrades would pass. And even if it did, this postpones the seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library for at least six months. What if the Big One earthquake happens before the retrofitting is completed, like three months before? Then I'll feel a ton of regret that lives were lost because the retrofitting bond measure was put off until November."

I realize that rational counter-arguments can be made to this, using the sort of logic that economists and psychologists used to think prevailed in the human decision-making psyche. But in large part because of Kahneman and Tversky, we now know that emotions such as regret play a large role in why people do what they do and feel as they feel.

So City officials, including city councilors, will be making a mistake if they think arguments such as the following are going to be sufficient to sell a new police facility bond measure to voters.

-- "It only costs the average home owner a few dollars a month."
-- "The current Police Department quarters are really crowded and inadequate."
-- "Expert consultants told us what the cost should be."

These aren't bad arguments. But proponents of Measure 24-399 had over a hundred thousand dollars to make them last time, and this wasn't enough to entice a majority of voters to say "yes."

This time around, a new police facility ballot measure will be facing these potential headwinds:

-- "Didn't we just vote on this?"
-- "What's the rush for another vote?"
-- "The cost is still really high."
-- "Making the Library and City Hall earthquake safe still isn't included."

I've argued here that the last item, seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center buildings, is a crucial element of a bond measure because it is so emotionally fraught.

Visualizing children dying when the Library collapses in the Big One earthquake is a more potent motivation to vote "no" on a police facility-only bond measure than is an argument that, for example, interview rooms and evidence storage space are inadequate in the current Police Department location.

Many voters, either implicitly or explicitly, can imagine the regret they would feel if they didn't do all they could to make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe in advance of the Big One quake that is sure to come, the only question being when? 

If City officials decide to once again omit seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center buildings from a public safety bond measure where a central rationale for a new police facility is that City Hall is unsafe for Police Department staff to be in, this offers up a potent argument to vote "no" on the measure, just as it did with the previous bond measure.

Lastly, here's a screen shot of the first 115 responses to a Facebook survey I posted yesterday afternoon on behalf of Salem Community Vision. When asked which of four police facility options are most liked, 57% favor a $66 million plan that includes seismic retrofitting of both City Hall and the Library, and 10% favor a $79 million plan that includes seismic retrofitting and other renovations to the Library. 

Two standalone options for a police facility only are favored by just 7% of respondents so far. So these early responses are running 11 to 1 in favor of including seismic retrofitting in a new bond measure.

How much does regret play a role in this? Hard to tell. But solid psychological research says, probably quite a bit, whether consciously or unconsciously. 

Video of disturbing Salem City Council machinations about new police facility plan

[Update: I've gotten a message from City Manager Steve Powers that is reassuring. He says that all police facility options are still on the table for the February 21 City Council work session.

Brian,

Thank you for your email.  Council has not taken the library and civic center/city hall seismic work  out of consideration for a May 2017 bond measure.  The action that Council took Monday night was to add for discussion at the February 21 work session an option that would have the City proceed with a ballot measure for a police facility in May followed by a later ballot measure for library and city facilities improvements. The action was taken after discussion  under Special Orders of Business, item 5.a.,  May 16, 2017 Public Safety General Obligation Bond Measure, as shown on the published agenda for the February 13 Council meeting.

Steve Powers

Good news. But at the time I wrote this post, I was operating off of what a City of Salem Facebook post about the February 3 City Council meeting said. This excerpt from the post matched my interpretation of the motion passed by the Council after I left the meeting and later watched the CCTV video.

The City Council voted to separate the police facility and seismic retrofitting of City facilities into two separate issues. They will hold a work session on February 21 to discuss police facility options and which one they might put on the May ballot. They agreed that they will seek to put a seismic upgrade option on the November ballot. The specifics of the potential bond for the November ballot will be decided at a later work session.

This sure made it sound like only police facility options that didn't include seismic retrofitting of Civic Center buildings would be discussed at the February 21 work session. But I'm glad that City officials are interpreting that motion differently. A new bond measure for a police facility will have a greater chance of passing if it includes money to make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.]

-----------------

I'm a big believer in open, transparent government. Important policy decisions should be made in the public eye, not behind closed-doors. Citizens should have plenty of opportunity to present testimony about those decisions before they're voted on.

For quite a while this hasn't been happening here in Salem. City Hall is notoriously biased in favor of top-down decision-making where the public only is able to weigh in on decisions that, for all intents and purposes, already have been decided. 

So public participation is pretty much a sham. 

Here's an annotated video I made of part of last Monday's City Council meeting that shows what I mean. It features a Robert's Rules of Order dance between Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Tom Andersen where the moves seem to have been pre-arranged. Here's how I describe the You Tube video.

I added some annotations to the clip of what happened at the February 13, 2017 City Council meeting where some of the options for a new police facility bond were unexpectedly removed from consideration in advance of a work session on February 21. So the public won't have a chance to testify about these options, which ended being any option that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe (after Councilor Andersen's motion shown in the video was amended). I find this deeply disturbing, because it goes against the intent of making policy decisions in an open, transparent, public manner.

As background to the above, here's the content of an email that I sent to City officials yesterday.

If City of Salem officials, staff, and councilors wanted to guarantee that there will be strong organized opposition to a new police facility bond measure on the May ballot, the unexpected action of the City Council last night just guaranteed it. Very aggravating.

Here’s what I just said in a Strange Up Salem post:

 

https://www.facebook.com/StrangeUpSalem/posts/1247676155313183

AGGRAVATING! CITY COUNCIL SAID "NO" TO SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR THE LIBRARY AND CITY HALL AS PART OF A NEW POLICE FACILITY PLAN

I left last night's City Council meeting after testifying in support of a Salem Community Vision plan that would put a proposal on the May ballot to build a new 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismically retrofit both City Hall and the Library for $66 million. Until a few minutes ago I didn't know the Council unexpectedly voted later in the meeting to discard any new police facility plan that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

The video below of the meeting should begin at about the 1:26 mark, which starts off a 25 minute or so discussion. There was no advance notice that last night the City Council would decide to make lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Civic Center buildings a possibility for some future date, rather than leaving this as a viable option for discussion at a February 21 council work session regarding a May police facility bond measure. 

My Salem Community Vision colleagues and I will be discussing this disappointing action by the City Council tomorrow. 

At the moment, I'm so irked by the Council taking seismic upgrades off the table before citizens had a chance to testify at the February 21 council work session, I'm leaning toward opposing any police facility bond measure on the May ballot that doesn't include money for lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall. 

I led the fight against Measure 24-399, the standalone $82 million police facility plan. 

Even though we opponents were outspent by about $102,000 to $3,000, voters still rejected that bond measure. One of our best arguments was that it made no sense to move Police Department staff out of a building that would collapse in the Big One earthquake, then move other City employees into the same City Hall space so THEY will be the ones crushed to death.

Along with children at the Library, and other people in that building.

So it looks like I and others who want to see the lives of people in City Hall and the Library saved along with the lives of Police Department staff will have to oppose a new police facility bond measure just as strongly as we did the last one. This would be really unfortunate.

I'd hoped that Salem could come together in a community consensus that a PLAN B for the police facility needs to include lifesaving seismic upgrades for the Library and City Hall. But the City Council just voted to ignore the pleas of citizens to make the Civic Center buildings earthquake-safe at the same time as this is done for a new Police Department headquarters.

Bad decision. 

I don't know whether voters will decide to approve a standalone police facility bond in the May election, but the way I feel right now -- deeply irritated and disappointed -- I'll do my best to defeat that bond measure. 

Because the lives of everybody who is working at, or visiting, City Hall and the Library when the Big One earthquake hits are at stake. I can't live with myself if I don't fight to save those lives by once again trying to defeat a police facility bond measure that values the safety of Police Department staff over the safety of other citizens.

The plan taken off the table by the City Council 

 

Mayor Bennett doubles down on false claim of no 3rd Bridge tolling

Mayor Bennett is going backwards, truth-telling-wise, on the City of Salem's false contention that there is no plan to toll any of Salem's bridges. Friday I blogged about the original falsity in "'Alternative Facts' in City of Salem Facebook post about 3rd Bridge tolls." 

Regarding the post on the official City of Salem Facebook page, I said:

I was deeply irritated after reading it, and not just because I'm strongly opposed to building an unneeded half-billion dollar 3rd Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing (which would cost around a billion dollars once financing is included). 

What bugged me the most was the disregard for evident facts in the post. Look, I understand that one job of PR people at the City of Salem is to defend policy decisions, even if they are screwy. But these communications staff also have a responsibility to citizens to be as honest, open, and transparent as possible.

Yesterday morning, Saturday, I sent this message to the email address shown on the City of Salem Facebook page.

Whoever at the City of Salem wrote this misleading post needs to read my blog post about the "Alternative facts" in it. See:

 

http://hinessight.blogs.com/salempoliticalsnark/2017/02/alternative-facts-in-city-of-salem-facebook-post-about-3rd-bridge-tolls.html

 

Then this person needs to do one of two things: (1) If what I and others have said is true -- this Facebook post got important facts wrong -- an apology and correction needs to be issued ASAP. 

 

(2) If the City of Salem takes issue with the asserted "real facts" -- tolling is planned for the Third Bridge; the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding ] requires tolling/congestion pricing on a new bridge; the MOU was planned to be an agenda item at the Feb. 13 Council meeting before it was pulled from the agenda --- then evidence needs to be presented that your "alternative facts" are true and the asserted "real facts" are false.

 

If (2) is chosen, we can have a dialogue. I say this because I'm confident that what I asserted in my blog post is true. I'm open to changing my mind if the City presents sufficient evidence and good reasons, but at the moment I consider that unlikely, given the weight of evidence that tolling is indeed part of the Third Bridge financing plan, the MOU requires tolling of some sort, and this issue was set to be on the Feb. 13 agenda until it was pulled off.

But today, Sunday, on the No 3rd Bridge Facebook page a concerned citizen shared in a comment the response she'd gotten from Mayor Chuck Bennett. (click image to enlarge)

Mayor Bennett said (emphasis added):

Hi Tamra,

First, thank you for your thoughtful email. I want to assure you there is no intention at all to impose tolls on Salem bridges. That is just misinformation.

It is not legal to toll the existing bridges. As for a future second crossing, the payment method for construction is going to be up to the voters at that time and my view is that tolling is probably the most unlikely if any method is acceptable.

I'd be glad to visit about this but I can't go into much detail writing on my iPhone. Let me know though and I'd be glad to call or write further when I get on a real keyboard,

Chuck Bennett
Mayor of Salem

Wow. Bennett said "there is no intention at all to impose tolls on Salem bridges."

Note that he didn't say on Salem's current bridges. The issue is whether there is an intention to toll the proposed Salem River Crossing, a.k.a. the 3rd Bridge (which, however, might entail also tolling the current bridges). The answer is clear: YES.

Here is the funding plan for the Salem River Crossing that shows $175 million of the $430 million cost coming from a $1.50 each way toll.
Download SRC-FundingStrategyMemo

Further, the Salem River Crossing web site has an entire FAQ section devoted to questions and answers about tolling. Here's a few of them.
Download FAQ - Salem River Crossing

Why would both the existing bridges and the new bridge have to be tolled?

The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion across the river and on the connecting street system.

Tolling is being explored as a way to pay for the project but it does not work if only one bridge is tolled. If only the new bridge is tolled, many people would choose to use the existing (non-tolled) bridges instead of the new one. This would result in little improvement to congestion on the existing bridges. Since so many fewer people would use the new tolled bridge, not enough money would be generated to pay for it. If both bridges are tolled, traffic is balanced between the new and existing bridges and tolls are captured for a much larger number of trips across the river.

What is congestion pricing?

Congestion pricing is a way to use tolls to manage congestion, in addition to generating revenue. The term means that tolls would be adjusted based on the amount of traffic on the road. Drivers pay more to drive during the most congested parts of the day. The most advanced systems adjust the price automatically as traffic conditions change throughout the day, keeping traffic moving more smoothly. While congestion pricing increases costs for drivers in the peak travel hours, it can dramatically reduce congestion by spreading traffic into the less congested times of day. The SR 167 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane between Renton and Auburn Washington uses congestion pricing.

Thus not only did Mayor Bennett falsely claim that there is no intention to impose tolls on Salem bridges (there is, both for a new 3rd Bridge and for the two existing bridges), it seems pretty damn clear that Bennett also wrongly said that it is not legal to toll the existing bridges. 

If this is true, which I'm quite sure it isn't, Bennett needs to tell the Salem River Crossing team to take any and all mention of tolling the two existing bridges off of the SRC web site, because currently it says that if tolling is used as a way to pay for the project, as the funding plan says, ALL of Salem's bridges probably would need to be tolled. 

Why would the SRC team say this if it was illegal? They are transportation experts. Further, I browsed through several documents related to tolling roads and bridges in Oregon and couldn't find any mention that this would require voter approval. See here and here.

So let's add another probably falsehood to Bennett's list: 

... the payment method for construction is going to be up to the voters at that time and my view is that tolling is probably the most unlikely if any method is acceptable

This morning I emailed Mayor Bennett, asking him to clarify his tolling comments. I haven't gotten a response yet. I'll share it if I hear from him. 

 

"Alternative facts" in City of Salem Facebook post about 3rd Bridge tolls

I've been worried that the Trump administration's love of "alternative facts," otherwise known as falsehoods, would creep into other levels of government such as the City of Salem. 

Well, today that worry manifested as reality in a post about 3rd Bridge tolling on the City's Facebook page. 

I was deeply irritated after reading it, and not just because I'm strongly opposed to building an unneeded half-billion dollar 3rd Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing (which would cost around a billion dollars once financing is included). 

What bugged me the most was the disregard for evident facts in the post. Look, I understand that one job of PR people at the City of Salem is to defend policy decisions, even if they are screwy. But these communications staff also have a responsibility to citizens to be as honest, open, and transparent as possible.

After all, they are public servants, not servants of Mayor Bennett and City Manager Powers. 

Here's the "alternative facts" (in bold) put forth by a City spokesperson who, so far as I can tell, only is identified on the Facebook page by an email address: [email protected] The "actual facts" as I understand them follow.

(1) "The City of Salem is not considering tolling any of Salem’s bridges." Wrong. The City is moving ahead with plans for the Salem River Crossing. The official funding plan for this $430 million project includes tolling. Here's proof. The plan is to raise $175 million via a $1.50 each way toll on the new bridge. 

(2) "Congestion pricing is one of many financing options that will be considered when the project is ready for design and construction." So misleading, I also call this statement wrong. 

First, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the City of Salem and state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) doesn't say that congestion pricing (meaning, tolls)  is an option. It is a requirement. Here's part of the City's obligations under the MOU.

The MOU says will include. The Facebook post says will be considered. If the MOU is approved by the Salem City Council, thereby becoming an Intergovernmental Agreement, this will be binding on the City of Salem. 

The purpose of the MOU was to get DLCD to forego being part of a legal appeal of the City of Salem's decision to expand its urban growth boundary to accommodate the Third Bridge. Indeed, this appeal was dropped by DLCD after the MOU was agreed to. Pretty obviously, DLCD staff didn't think the Salem River Crossing plan met state land use goals. So the MOU was drafted to force the City to pursue environment-friendly options that it hadn't been sufficiently interested in before.

Such as congestion pricing. The way I read the MOU, which is how the No 3rd Bridge folks and the Breakfast on Bikes blogger also read the MOU, tolling would be a must, not a maybe, if the MOU is ratified by the Salem City Council. See here and here.

If City officials somehow believe that the language in the image above, "City will include a congestion pricing model," means that this just has to be considered by Third Bridge planners, not implemented, I look forward to seeing a letter from DLCD confirming this. Until that happens, I and others will continue to assume that some form of tolling is a must for the Third Bridge under the MOU, not a maybe.

Another falsehood in this statement on the City's Facebook page is the assertion that there's no design for the Salem River Crossing.

Actually, there is, or at least will be by November of this year, because this is a requirement of the bridge's Environmental Impact Statement. A Federal Highway Administration environmental specialist, Emily Cline, confirmed this after I emailed her following an assertion by Mayor Bennett that there wasn't any design for the Third Bridge. Cline said (emphasis added):

Dear Mr. Hines:

Thank you for your interest in the Salem River Crossing project. We expect the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be published fall 2017.  The Preferred Alternative was recommended by the Oversight Team in February 2014. The Final EIS will analyze the Preferred Alternative and respond to public and local agencies/organizations comments from the Draft EIS.  The Final EIS will contain preliminary engineering design. Any alternative that is forwarded would go through detailed engineering design prior to construction. If the decision is made to pick a build alternative, we would hope to have a Record of Decision by the end of 2017.

(3) "Congestion pricing is a charge to motorists using a certain lane or lanes at specific times of day as a way to create a smooth flow of traffic." Not true, because this is only one aspect of congestion pricing. And that statement by the City of Salem spokesperson gives the impression that the whole Third Bridge wouldn't be tolled. 

Here's what I said about this misleading statement in a comment I left on the Facebook post.

Congestion pricing means tolls in this context of the 3rd Bridge. Do some Googling of what congestion pricing means. It involves tolls of one sort or another. 

For example:

"Congestion pricing, also known as variable tolling, offers a solution. Congestion pricing means the highway toll changes based on the number of drivers using the road. Travelers respond to the higher tolls by shifting nonessential trips to a different time or by carpooling, thus reducing congestion."

See: https://www.mercatus.org/publication/tolling-freeway-congestion-pricing-and-economics-managing-traffic

It is false that congestion pricing is limited to what this post wrongly says: a charge to use a lane or lanes at certain times of day. The Federal Highway Administration lays out the true options for congestion pricing:

"Variably priced lanes, involving variable tolls on separated lanes within a highway, such as Express Toll Lanes or HOT Lanes, i.e. High Occupancy Toll lanes

Variable tolls on entire roadways – both on toll roads and bridges, as well as on existing toll-free facilities during rush hours

Cordon charges – either variable or fixed charges to drive within or into a congested area within a city

Area-wide charges – per-mile charges on all roads within an area that may vary by level of congestion"

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/congestionpricing/congestionpricing.pdf

The first two of the four congestion pricing options are what would apply to the 3rd Bridge. They are TOLLS. The Federal Highway Administration uses that word. So the City of Salem needs to stop misleading citizens. Hopefully you will correct this Facebook post to reflect the truth about the congestion pricing/tolls Salem citizens would be required to pay if the 3rd Bridge ever is built.

(4) "Adoption of the IGA is not on the agenda for the February 13th City Council meeting and will not be discussed. Rumors to the contrary are false." Wow. Now we're deep into the woods of Alternative Facts territory. This is the sort of spin-doctor stuff that drives people crazy when public servants in government agencies present a highly selective view of the truth.

The almost-certain full truth is that adoption of the Intergovernmental Agreement (formalizing the MOU signed by the City Manager) was indeed planned to be on the February 13 City Council agenda, but was pulled at the last moment -- perhaps because City officials were hearing from citizens that they didn't want to pay no damn toll to cross the river (or words to that effect).

Here's the evidence for this.

-- A comment from the No 3rd Bridge folks on the City's Facebook post says, "It was on the agenda until just recently." Another commenter said, "I had a conversation with a council member who told me they expected the third bridge to be on the agenda."

-- Quite a while ago the No 3rd Bridge Facebook page had an Event post about the February 13 agenda item. That post was deleted after it was realized that the MOU/IGA item wasn't on the agenda. But I shared part of the post several days ago: 

"At the Salem City Council meeting on Monday, February 13th, the City Council will deliberate on an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development that would advance the 3rd Bridge project (Salem River Crossing)."

-- So for quite a few days citizen activists used social media to urge people to express their view about a February 13 City Council meeting agenda item that a City spokesperson crudely dismisses as false rumors. Well, almost certainly those rumors were valid until some City official decided to pull that item from the agenda. I've closely followed No 3rd Bridge Facebook posts for a long time. They are always factually based. It is extremely unlikely that the No 3rd Bridge folks made up a false agenda item for the February 13 meeting. It must have been planned to be on the agenda.

-- I checked the City's Calendar page on its web site late Thursday night to see if the February 13 City Council meeting agenda was online. It wasn't, though agendas for meetings of the Housing Authority and Urban Renewal Agency, which happen just before the Council meeting, were available. The February 13 City Council agenda wasn't online until today, Friday morning. That is unusual, since Council agendas typically are posted sometime on Thursday. So this also points to a last minute change in the agenda.

Alternative facts. Falsehoods. Misleading the public. 

Whatever you want to call the City of Salem's Facebook post about tolling/congestion pricing on the Third Bridge, that sort of spin-doctor communication with the public needs to stop. The City's communication staff have a duty to be upfront, honest, and transparent with us citizens. 

Salem City Council to vote on tolling a 3rd Bridge (and likely existing bridges)

Are you ready and willing to pay a $1.50 toll each way to cross the Willamette River between West Salem and the downtown area? I'm sure not. But the Salem City Council is going to vote on this at their meeting on Monday, February 13, 6:oo pm, at City Hall.

I'm urging citizens to tell Mayor Bennett and the seven city councilors (one seat is vacant) that, in short, NO WAY DO I WANT TO PAY A TOLL TO CROSS THE RIVER.

You can email them: [email protected]
You can testify during the public comment period (3 minutes maximum).

Here's info posted by the No 3rd Bridge folks about what's happening at the February 13 City Council meeting. First, a description of the event, "City Council Deliberation on DLCD Intergovernmental Agreement."

At the Salem City Council meeting on Monday, February 13th, the City Council will deliberate on an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development that would advance the 3rd Bridge project (Salem River Crossing). The agreement addresses the scope and timeline of the project and project funding (including tolls) among other issues.

Here's a No 3rd Bridge post, "Agreement with DLCD will call for tolling the 3rd Bridge," that focuses on tolling. 

Maybe the most interesting element of the Memorandum of Understanding signed last Friday between the City of Salem and the Department of Land Conservation and Development is pictured below.


It states that the funding strategy for the 3rd Bridge will include a "congestion pricing model" as part of the funding strategy. We believe that can only mean one thing. A toll on the 3rd Bridge.

The passage goes on to state that congestion pricing need not be applied to the existing bridges. This is peculiar because, as everyone knows, you can't just toll the 3rd Bridge and not toll the Marion and Center Street bridges. No one will use the 3rd Bridge if the other two bridges are free.

There are other methods of "congestion pricing" such as major cities like London use, involving charges to enter the central city, but that can't be what is referred to in the MOU. It must be referring to tolling the 3rd Bridge.

Of course the Funding Strategy Memo adopted by the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team already includes tolling on all three bridges (new and existing). So in a way this is nothing new.

However, the Salem City Council has never been asked to formally agree to tolling.

When the Intergovernmental Agreement is placed before them that formalizes the MOU, they will be asked to say "yes" to tolls, at least on the 3rd Bridge, and practically speaking, on all the bridges. Will that be a step they are willing to take?

Good question.

Politically, seemingly it would be unwise for Mayor Bennett or any of the city councilors to vote for tolling, Few people in Salem are eager to fork out $1.50 every time they go back and forth between West Salem and the downtown area, especially since the existing bridges are bought and paid for.

But as the No 3rd Bridge post correctly points out, it is virtually unthinkable that only a new bridge (which I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle) would be tolled. If this happened, most drivers would use the existing bridges rather than the new bridge, which would make the 3rd Bridge even more of a boondoggle, being an unused boondoggle. 

Or the 3rd Bridge would become a well-to-do person's way to cross the river, similar to how some freeways in southern California have been built that require tolls.

Recently I visited my daughter, who now lives in Orange County. We were zipping along on a freeway, and I remarked how uncrowded it was. "That's because it has a toll," my daughter said. Soon I could see I-405, which roughly paralleled the toll freeway, crowded with vehicles driven by people who didn't want to pay a toll (I recall the price was $7, or something like that).

Is this what we want in Salem? Either pay $1.50 each way to use all three vehicular bridges, or just pay to use the 3rd Bridge, which soon would become known as the Rich Person's Bridge? 

Another No 3rd Bridge post, "Three good reasons why the City Council should reject the Intergovernmental Agreement with DLCD," says:

On February 13th the City Council will be asked to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement negotiated with the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Department concerning the 3rd Bridge (aka Salem River Crossing). It will be based on a Memorandum of Understanding that has already been signed by the City Manager.

 

Here are three reasons the City Council should reject the IGA.

1) The IGA advances the Salem River Crossing Project that has already wasted nearly $8 million for a project that has no viable funding plan. Millions more will be wasted if the decade long zombie project continues.

2) The IGA reduces the size of the 3rd Bridge to two lanes in the first phase of construction. A two lane bridge from Pine Street to Hope Street would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars and would do nothing to address peak hour traffic congestion at the existing bridgeheads which is the stated purpose of the Salem River Crossing project.

3) The IGA calls for "congestion pricing" of the 3rd Bridge which is a euphemism for tolls. The last thing Salem needs is an urban toll bridge which would be the only urban toll bridge in Oregon. Mayor Bennett has stated that he is opposed to tolls as a method to fund the 3rd Bridge, so why would he ever vote for the IGA?

There are other reasons why the IGA should be rejected, but these three seem sufficient, don't you think?

 

Yes, indeed, I do think. 

 

It will be interesting to see how the City Council vote turns out on February 13. The four progressive councilors -- Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec -- all appear to be opposed to the 3rd Bridge. So it would make sense for them to vote against approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement that includes a tolling provision, as approval would advance the 3rd Bridge. 

 

If all four vote against the agreement, it won't be approved.

 

With one seat vacant on the nine-member City Council, it takes five votes to pass a motion, just as it would if all of the seats were filled. So one of the progressive councilors would have to join with Mayor Bennett and councilors McCoid, Nanke, and Lewis on saying "Aye" to the agreement, which is how I expect those four to vote.

 

I doubt a progressive councilor will suddenly decide to support the 3rd Bridge. So my bet is that the Intergovernmental Agreement with DLCD won't be approved.

 

This would be a big blow to the 3rd Bridge. Before the Salem City Manager, Steve Powers, signed the Memorandum of Understanding, the Department of Land Conservation and Development had signed on to a lawsuit opposing the City of Salem's expansion of its urban growth boundary to accommodate the 3rd Bridge. 

 

The agreement apparently was a deal worked out behind closed doors to get DLCD out of the lawsuit, which was filed by local bridge opponents with the Land Use Board of Appeals. 

 

Seemingly the likelihood of DLCD rejoining the appeal against the urban growth expansion would be pretty high if the Intergovernmental Agreement isn't approved by the City Council on February 13. 

 

[Update: OK, scratch that idea. A No 3rd Bridge commenter on this post said it is too late for DLCD to rejoin the LUBA appeal.]

 

Which is another reason citizens need to contact the City Council and urge a NO vote. Like I said before:

 

You can email them: [email protected]
You can testify during the public comment period (3 minutes maximum). 

City Council seems to favor smaller, cheaper police facility and making Library earthquake-safe

I just got back from a 2 1/2 hour Salem City Council work session on a new police facility plan.

Being more than a little tired, decaffeinated, and looking forward to watching the newest episode of The Young Pope (a great HBO series), I'll just offer up a fairly short take on what transpired tonight, and maybe add on to this post tomorrow. 

First, on a personal note I found it really satisfying to hear everybody talking about how to reduce the cost and size of the previous $82 million, 148,000 square foot police facility plan that was rejected by voters last November when Measure 24-399 failed.

Having led the fight against the ballot measure, yet recognizing that Salem needs a new police facility, just not the one that was previously proposed, it was deeply heartening to hear the Mayor, City Manager, city councilors, police chief, architectural consultants, City staff, and others agreeing that our community needs to find a PLAN B now that PLAN A was voted down.

Here's an overview of what transpired at the work session.

Two down-sized police facility proposals were put forward by City of Salem staff: (1) a 115,000 square foot plan that costs $64 million, and (2) a 127,000 square foot plan that costs $69 million.  See:

The cost of seismically reinforcing City Hall (which kept being called the "Civic Center" for some reason, even though the Civic Center includes the nearby fire station, City Hall, and the Library) and the Library also came up for considerable discussion. See:


A citizen group chaired by John Hawkins had recommended that the 115,000 square foot police facility plan be combined with seismic retrofitting of the Library. Because seismic retrofits and other renovations to City Hall are more costly and complicated, it looks like this will be put off for a few years.

So the discussion among council members, and public testimony by me and others, centered on the need to make the Library earthquake-safe and the cost of the new police facility plans.

As you can see from the Library cost breakdown, only $6,459,000 of the $15,337,000 total is for actual seismic upgrades. The rest is basically for deferred maintenance of stuff that needs to be replaced/renovated. One question facing the City Council is whether it makes sense to include the deferred maintenance items in a new police facility bond measure.

I feel that it would be better to ask voters to simply pay for life-saving seismic retrofitting as part of a Public Safety bond that includes funding for a 115,000 square foot police facility. Paying for a new Library roof, plus electrical and HVAC repairs, etc.,  just doesn't seem like a wise thing to ask for in a bond measure. Isn't there another pot of money that can pay for these sorts of routine maintenance items?

An interesting part of the work session came when Garth Brandaw of the CB Two architectural firm provided a cogent explanation of why the Salem police facility is costing so much more per square foot than a Beaverton police facility. (I blogged about this yesterday.)

From my notes, this is how Brandaw explained $13.1 million of excess costs for the Salem police facility:

(1) $3.3 million is due to programmatic differences. Salem has a crime lab, bomb squad, special teams. This produces an extra cost in "hard construction."

(2) $4.6 million is due to special features of the site that make it more difficult to build on ($2 million) and a parking structure, since Beaverton has all surface parking ($2.6 million).

(3) $5.2 million is due to a higher 9% rate for cost escalation and contingency allowances; Beaverton used a 5% rate.

In part of my testimony, I thanked Brandaw for explaining this so clearly. I said that I didn't necessarily agree that these extra costs were necessary, but now the City Council knows what to look for as places to cut costs, if desired.

Near the end of the work session, Councilor Tom Andersen made a motion to have staff prepare a bond measure resolution to be discussed at another work session that probably would be held on February 21. Andersen wanted the resolution to be for a 115,000 square foot police facility and seismic retrofitting of the Library (seemingly the full $15,337,000).

Now, the problem with this, which I pointed out in my testimony, is that $64 million for a police facility plus $15 million for Library renovations totals to $79 million, which is just $3 million less than the $82 million bond voters rejected in November. Yes, now citizens would get a Library that is earthquake-safe, PLUS a new police facility. 

But many voters may just look at the price tag, roughly $79 million, and think, "Didn't we just vote this expensive bond measure down a few months ago? I'm going to vote no again."

So after the work session was over I told Brandaw and other members of the architectural team from the DLR Group that they need to look at each of the "extra cost" line items and try to get their cost down as much as possible. For example, by reducing the escalation/contingency to 5%, as Beaverton used.

A 60-some million bond measure would be much more appealing to voters than a 70-some million bond measure.

After Andersen made his motion, Councilor Brad Nanke said he wanted to have staff come back with other draft resolutions. One for a stand-alone $64 million police facility, and one for a stand-alone $69 million police facility. That amended motion was approved, so at the next work session the City Council will be discussing three options: two stand-alone plans, and one plan for a 115,000 square foot police facility and seismic upgrades/renovations to the Library.

I believe that the last option is the best.

It would have the most appeal to voters, especially if the cost can be reduced to around $69 million or less. I couldn't support either of the "Nanke options," because I feel so strongly that it is wrong to leave people at the Library and City Hall unprotected when the Big One earthquake hits, while Police Department employees would be safe in a seismically-sound police facility after being moved out of City Hall into a new police facility.

Judging from the tone of what Mayor Bennett and city councilors said tonight, my bet is that the City Council will end up going with some version of the 115,000 square foot police facility plus the Library seismic upgrades plan. But I could be wrong. Several councilors sounded like they'd be happy with not putting forward any PLAN B on the May ballot, and wait for another voting opportunity.

Well, I've written more than I planned. Maybe I won't do an update. Time to watch The Young Pope...