Salem Political Snark

"Our Salem" plan needs a top-priority: reducing greenhouse gases

If you care about how livable Salem is, check out a recently-released draft report from the City of Salem, Our Salem Vision. There's a lot to like in that vision, but also a lot not to like. So let city officials know what you think of the report.

Even though the document says that the next step in the Comprehensive Planning process is public comment on the draft, I didn't see any indication in the report about how comments are to be submitted. A City of Salem Facebook post about Our Salem Vision also lacks any mention of how citizen feedback is to be provided.

So send comments to the project manager, Eunice Kim ([email protected]) and the City Council ([email protected]).

It's a nice-looking report. Good graphics and a readable format. Of course, the important thing is what the report says, not its appearance. And here there are grounds for criticism.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has an excellent critique of Our Salem Vision. Here's an excerpt from his post, "Our Salem Vison and Draft Plan Relies Too Much on Arterial Conversion to Mixed-Use."

In order to "protect" existing single detached housing and "neighborhood character," the vision offered by Our Salem in the new draft plan concentrates too much on already busy arterial streets and does not do enough to leverage our system of smaller, minor arterials and collector streets.

The main place this is visible, seemingly the project's "one big idea," is in the way the project team took a "mixed use paint brush" to the major corridors of Commercial Street and Lancaster Drive and changed the color on the existing zoning outlines. This is not by itself a bad move, but because it is an isolated move, it looks like warehousing new projects on streets that are already busy, unpleasant, and polluted.

An important missing ingredient, then, is a boulevard conversion for Commercial and Lancaster. The proposed change from commercial to mixed-use zoning needs to be accompanied by a stroad-to-boulevard conversion in the streets. Otherwise they will still be oversized for autoist primacy and still very zoomy. Boulevard conversions also add medians for street trees and improve tree canopy. They prioritize local travel on the margins at calm speed and give through-travel the center.

Is Mixed Use by itself going to help with this?

I heartily agree. South Commercial and Lancaster Drive are unappealing monuments to an era in Salem's development when the car was king and global warming wasn't an issue. 

Just as Confederate monuments are being removed because they no longer fit with the tenor of our times, so should Commercial and Liberty, perhaps along with some other major streets in Salem, be markedly renovated -- fewer lanes, dedicated bike paths, trees planted, additional pedestrian crossings, and other changes.

In short, made into boulevards. 

Why would residential mixed use areas on these streets be attractive to people when Commercial and Liberty are so unfriendly to anyone not driving a vehicle? As the Breakfast on Bikes blogger said, simply slapping a new zoning designation on the streets doesn't change their character.

My own critique of Our Salem Vision is more over-arching.

Yet it fits in with the above criticism that the draft report doesn't go far enough in calling for changes in Salem's urban landscape that promise to bring major improvements to our city, not simply tinkering around the edges of what already exists.

Currently Our Salem Vision tries to be all things to all people. There's a lengthy list of goals in a number of areas. Economy and jobs. Natural resources. Parks. Transportation. Housing. And such. 

The report contains a lot of laudable objectives. Each section sounds good. It'd be nice if everything called for in the report came to pass. But here's the thing: life involves choices between alternatives. Life demands that this be given a higher priority than that. Everybody with a to-do list, which includes just about every person, knows this.

What is most important? What needs to be done first? What is most central? Unless those questions are answered, either a home chore to-do list or a city planning document is going to suffer from a lack of attention to urgent priorities.

Here's an example of what I mean. 

My wife and I live outside the Salem city limits. We know that at some point likely we'll have to move into town when our 10 non-easy-care acres get to be too much for us. So we have a realtor who sends us listings of houses that might match up with what we're looking for. We've visited some of these houses.

Invariably, there will be one thing, or sometimes several things. that make us say "no way" even though the house fits with what we want in other regards. We have a hierarchy of needs/wants for a house. If a house is good in every regard but our top priorities, we tell the realtor that we'll keep looking.

Now, obviously setting priorities between various goals is a lot tougher when Our Salem Vision has to reflect what several hundred thousand people want. Maybe that's why there was no attempt to do this in the planning process for Our Salem. 

But it needs to be done now, or Our Salem Vision won't be the effective document that it sets out to be. When you try to be all things to all people, you end up not being genuinely yourself. My view is that the top priorities flow naturally from this graphic shown early on in the draft document.

The reddish areas where Salem isn't meeting targets, is falling behind other similar cities in our area, and is moving in the wrong direction, relate to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from travel, tree canopy, bicycle and pedestrian use, and walk and transit friendliness.

So the top priority seems clear. 

The Salem City Council has to make a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the highest goal. Since transportation is the main driver of increased carbon pollution, a major change in how our city looks upon streets, mass transit, bike lanes, and such needs to happen. 

Other goals need to fit in with that top-priority vision.

For example, Neighborhood Hubs are properly emphasized in Our Salem Vision. And we shouldn't have just eleven of them, as the report calls for. Many more. Every neighborhood should have restaurants, taverns, shops, and other local businesses within easy walking and cycling distance. 

That will reduce the need to drive cars. That will enhance connections between people. That will expand the economy. Many good things will flow from making a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the over-arching goal for Salem. 

Global warming has markedly increased the wildfire danger in Oregon, as elsewhere. Likely it is responsible for the drought plaguing our state. And global warming poses an existential threat to humanity in general. 

How can reducing greenhouse gas emissions not be the top priority for Salem? This needs to be stated explicitly by the City Council.

Otherwise, those who favor increased vehicular travel and building new roads will be able to point to other goals in the Our Salem document and say, "These things are mentioned along with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, so they deserve to be treated as equally important."

Mark Wigg draws attention to plight of homeless in Wallace Marine Park

Salem citizen activist Mark Wigg doesn't mince words. Here's his advance prepared remarks that closely reflect part of what he said in public testimony at last night's City Council meeting. 

Below I'll share my thoughts about what Wigg says.

Mayor Bennett,

I ask you, Steve Powers and Peter Fernandez to resign because your criminally negligent policies and actions may have led to the rape and murder of at least a dozen women in Wallace Marine Park.

When you forced the homeless to leave downtown Salem, you told them that they could camp at Wallace Marine Park and Cascade Gateway Park. You were aware that the homeless downtown included violent felons and psychotic men. You concentrated these people in the two parks.

In addition to the men you sent to Wallace, you sent women and girls. You told them the only place for them to camp was in these parks. So you took rabbits and tossed them in a cage with wolves. Is there anyone who couldn’t predict the outcome?

Imagine a young woman that was evicted from her apartment or is fleeing domestic violence. She grabs a few things that are precious to her, a sleeping bag, a tent and a few clothes. She goes to Wallace Marine Park because that is where you told her to camp. She gets there and sets up her tent.

That night or maybe the next, she wakes when a man cuts open her tent and sits on her while she is in her sleeping bag. She can’t move her arms or legs, she is helpless. Think of the terror and hopelessness she feels as clothes are stuffed in her mouth to stop her cries for help.

A few minutes later, she is dead. The murderer drags her to the river’s edge in her sleeping bag, tosses a few rocks in the bag and ties it up. Dragging the bag to knee deep water, the murderer lets it sink and drift downstream.

I have seen the torn tents with the precious personal effects left behind. The sleeping bag and girls are gone. We may never know their names. Their things will be washed away in the next high water or piled with the other trash that is occasionally picked up at the camps.

You didn’t have to be so cruel, but it was so much easier than doing the right thing.

I hope tonight when you are about to fall asleep that you will imagine the terror and pain you caused and are causing. I hope you feel enough shame to resign so more competent and compassionate leaders can take your place.

It's great that Wigg drew attention to the plight of homeless people who are camping in the two Salem parks. I haven't spent time in downtown lately, but I believe the homeless population there has been markedly reduced. So for most people they're out of mind if not visible.

And women must have a tougher time living in the parks than men do. The scenario Wigg describes of being raped in a tent likely occurs, and maybe even is common.

The notion that women have been killed and their bodies dumped in the river is much less believable. Seemingly there would be talk of missing homeless people, since the women must have friends and relatives who would wonder why they haven't been seen for a long time.

That said, hopefully Mayor Bennett, City Manager Powers, and the city councilors will take seriously the basic message Wigg gave them last night. Salem's homeless women are having a tough time in the camps set up in the two parks. This situation shouldn't last much longer, especially with bad weather and winter being close at hand.

Photo of Wallace Marine Park in April 2020 StreetRoots story

Last night the City Council approved money for security services at Marion Square Park and Wallace Marine Park through fiscal year 2021. That covers the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

It would be horrible if homeless people are still living in the parks through the end of June next year. Sure, it is better to have some security services, rather than no security at all. Much better still would be for those homeless people to have options other than camping out at Salem parks.

Here's what was approved.

Parks Security Services
Fund 101, General Fund, Non Departmental
From: Non Departmental, Contingency, 101-60961000-61110, $312,000
To: Non Departmental, Materials and Services, 101-60961000-52670, $312,000

During FY 2020 the City Council approved funding for security services at Marion Square Park. The services were expanded to include Wallace Marine Park and provide two personnel from 8:00am until 12:00am. The City Manager has directed that this service continue into FY 2021 and funding was not included in the FY 2021 budget. This action provides funding for this service through the end of FY 2021.

This is a video of yesterday's City Council meeting that starts when Mark Wigg presents his testimony. Watch the video, and you'll see Wigg also describe how he may have prevented a wildfire at Wallace Marine Park through some cookies.

City Manager is OK with a developer illegally removing trees

I'm no fan of Donald Trump's re-election campaign themes, but I do believe in law and order -- along with almost every other American.

Unfortunately, the City Manager for the City of Salem, Steve Powers, has said that he is OK with the Public Works Director (Peter Fernandez) bestowing a tree removal permit on a developer (Thomas Kay) 105 days after the trees were cut down without a permit.

Michael Slater, a strong advocate for trees in Salem, sent the following letter to Powers. Slater shared the letter on Facebook. You'll see that he made some strong arguments about why granting a tree removal permit after the developer illegally removed them is bad public policy.

This seems obvious, of course. But keep reading and you'll see that the City Manager disagreed with Slater. Here's Michael Slater's message.

MY LETTER TO STEVE POWERS ON ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS IN WREN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

Dear Mr. Powers, I am writing [to] express my frustration, once again, that the Public Works Director has failed to protect Salem’s street trees. The latest incident, as you know, is Director Fernandez’s ratification of the unlawful removal of five street trees by the developer of the Wren Heights subdevelopment.

Director Fernandez’s decision to award a street tree removal permit after the developer cut down the trees is bad public policy.

First, it rewards illegal conduct. The developer was required to obtain a street tree permit before removing any trees. This requirement was spelled out in the decision approving the developer’s land use application. And, it was not certain that the developer’s application would have been approved had he respected the process.

Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent for the future. Director Fernandez’s action has signaled to the developer community that it is okay to ask for forgiveness rather than go through the process of seeking approval. It is also an affront to all of the developers who follow the rules.

Finally, Director Fernandez’s decision is contrary to recent decisions by SPRAB [Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board] and the City Council, both of which have taken action to expand protection of Salem’s street trees.

This incident follows just a few months on the revelation that the Public Works Department had not been enforcing the City’s street tree ordinance related to pruning or removing a tree without a permit.

During the Council session in which this issue was discussed, Director Fernandez made a statement to the effect that Public Works staff simply didn’t believe the Council understood its own ordinance and, rather than going back to Council, simply choose to not enforce it. This is, to say the least, a rather extraordinary sentiment for a City department director to hold.

This pattern of activity undermines the public’s trust in Director Fernandez’s ability to supervise the city’s street trees in good faith.

Of course, it may be that Director Fernandez does not have the time to give much attention to street trees in light of the fact that his portfolio includes not only the traditional scope of public works, but also drinking water, sewers, stormwater, transportation, parks, and street trees.

I ask that you relieve Director Fernandez of his responsibilities for Salem’s street trees and assign them to the City’s Urban Forester. I would also ask that you seek Council approval for the creation of an Urban Forest Commission with authority to both recommend tree policy to Council and make decisions on individual permit applications.

Finally, I ask that you begin the process of reviewing whether the public is best served by a public works department with such a broad scope or whether we would be better served by returning to a model where City parks and street trees are managed by a separate parks department.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yesterday Slater shared the response he got from City Manager Steve Powers. Amazingly, Powers considers that issuing a tree removal permit more than three months after a developer ignored a requirement to get a permit and cut them down illegally is "appropriate."

CITY MANAGER RESPONDS TO MY LETTER ON STREET TREE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Slater, thank you for the letter regarding the street tree removal along Salem Heights Road. I believe staff’s actions, culminating in Mr. Fernandez issuing a tree removal permit, were appropriate considering SRC [Salem Revised Code], the specific property, and the circumstances. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will determine if the permit was correct.

I disagree that there is a pattern of staff disregard for trees. Through site plan review and development conditions, the City is proactive in ensuring SRC is followed. When violations occur, action is taken. We have learned from the past, and have improved the timeliness of enforcement.

I appreciate your wish for parks and natural spaces to receive more attention. I disagree that a way of increasing attention is by creating a parks department. As you know, Salem’s resources are stretched. Needs exceed available resources. Resources that are available should, whenever possible, go into direct services and not additional organizational layers and costs.

Steve Powers

On the bright side, it's good to see that City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke wants to do something about Public Works Director Peter Fernandez going light on those who illegally remove or damage trees in Salem.

This is a message Councilor Nordyke shared on Facebook.

It’s time to increase public oversight over City government. Here are three things I’m working on, with more to come.

First, at an upcoming City Council meeting on climate/environmental matters, I will propose the creation of an Urban Forest Commission in response to community concerns about the Public Works Department’s handling of tree issues.

Second, I’m exploring ways to create more public oversight and input into proposed development, to help us identify and objectively examine the concerns that neighbors frequently bring to City Council.

Third, as you all know, I spearheaded the performance audit of the Salem Police Department. This audit will include a public advisory group to oversee it. I tapped a professional auditor to serve on the public advisory group, in order to enhance the group’s watchdog capacity.

These plans all have one thing in common: public oversight.

We need more transparency and accountability in our city, and I cannot do this alone.

I hear and understand the frustrations about the way that government responds to challenging and unprecedented times. Tensions are high around the country, and too many are being asked to do more with less. We all must rise to the occasion.

We must recognize that social distancing and face mask rules are in place for everyone’s safety. Our schools, businesses, workers, nursing homes, parents, students, and so many others are counting on each of us to do our part to keep our COVID numbers down. So, please, wear a dang mask.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your concerns with me and demanding better.

This is how democracy works.

This is how we get better.

There’s more to come. Stay tuned!

City official issues tree removal permit 105 days after they were cut down

Peter Fernandez, the City of Salem Public Works Director, is still doing outrageous tree stuff -- seven years after public records that I got proved that Fernandez made an unethical backroom deal with a bank president to have five beautiful, large, healthy downtown trees removed for no good reason.

The newest Fernandez outrage is well-documented in an appeal by the Southwest Association of Neighbors (SWAN) of a tree removal permit that was issued on June 25, with an effective date of June 28, even though the five trees were cut down on April 15.
Download Salem Heights Tree Removal Permit Appeal Final 7-26-20

Wow. Even though Peter Fernandez is a crappy Public Works Director, he does apparently have a superpower: the ability to go back in time and grant a permit for something that was already illegally done.

Here's photos from the SWAN appeal that show what Fernandez and the developer who removed the trees (I'm assuming this was Thomas Kay) have wrought. 

This photo shows a view of Salem Heights Avenue before the trees were removed.

This photo shows Salem Heights Avenue after the trees were removed without a permit. Or, as Peter Fernandez would call it, a "street improvement."

And this photo shows the required neighborhood notice of a tree removal permit application. The notice had to be posted on a utility pole because the trees had already been cut down. Or, as Peter Fernandez would call it, "a delicious irony."

Now, you may have picked up some subtle, or not-so-subtle, clues in this blog post that I'm not a fan of Peter Fernandez.

Which is absolutely correct! I'll give some additional reasons for my attitude after I share a few excerpts from the SWAN appeal that show how distastefully Fernandez acted. I've boldfaced some especially pertinent parts.

(Note: Fernandez is only referred to as the "Director" in the appeal.)

Among the reasons for this appeal is the trees listed for potential removal - two significant white oak trees, two locust trees and a Douglas Fir tree - have already been cut down and removed prior to issuance of a permit for removal in violation of City Code contained within SRC Chapter 86. We believe the Director’s conclusion that there was no “reasonable alternative” was in error. We believe there were, or may have been reasonable alternatives.

City staff has confirmed with us that the trees were removed on April 15 in violation of the Code because the order granting the removal was not issued until June 25 with an effective date of July 28, 105 calendar days after they were cut down.

We believe the City Tree Code should be enforced in a way that protects the city’s trees. Granting a permit after trees have been cut, as in this case, sends a message the Code enforcement is lax. We intend to show that the cutting of trees along the 500 block of Salem Heights Avenue violated City Code.

We believe city residents deserve the opportunity to offer reasonable alternatives during the permit application process. This was denied in particular to the removal of the white oaks. The Director has concluded, without explanation in the order, that there was no reasonable alternative to cutting the trees. Our appeal will show the possibility that a reasonable alternative existed before the trees were removed.

This cutting and removal of trees on city-owned right of way prior to issuance of a tree removal permit is an egregious breach of current law and an affront to the citizens of Salem - a “tree” city. Cutting and removal of the trees in question prior to issuance of a tree removal permit is also an extreme breach of due process afforded by the tree removal permit application process.

It is ironic that the effort of city staff to comply with posting of the tree removal order and appeal process as required by the Code to be posted “where the tree or trees are located” had to be posted to a utility pole ​after​ the trees were reduced to stumpage. Again, this cutting was done prior to the issuance of a removal permit or posting of the required notice of removal.

If this was the only time Peter Fernandez abused the power of his position as Public Works Director, a single lapse in judgment could be forgiven. But it definitely isn't. Here's a couple of other examples, the second occurring only yesterday, though the first is more significant.

Earlier this month I described how Fernandez misled the City Council regarding the purchase of property in West Salem. See: "Salem City Council bamboozled by staff on Taybin Road property purchase."

I spent hundreds of dollars on a public records request that proved the actual reason Fernandez wanted to buy this property was for Marine Drive right-of-way in an area that the council had declared off-limits for a right-of-way acquisition. So Fernandez and other Public Works officials concocted a stormwater reason for the purchase that allowed them to use a different pot of money for it.

Then, last night the City Council voted to overturn Fernandez's recommendation for a right-turn lane that was planned to be part of a road diet at Broadway and Pine. I'd written about this in "Salem City Hall, where staff always are right and concerned citizens wrong."

As I said in that post, Fernandez believes that traffic will steadily increase in Salem, necessitating ever more road construction, even though the City of Salem's own Strategic Plan calls for greenhouse gas reductions in our city, and transportation is the largest source of carbon pollution.

Fortunately, a majority of the City Council (Mayor Bennett and Councilors Lewis and Nanke being the minority) didn't buy the anti-environment B.S. that Fernandez was trying to sell at yesterday's council meeting. Councilors Tom Andersen, Vanessa Nordyke, and Chris Hoy were especially persuasive in their arguments against the carcentric philosophy that the right-turn lane represented.

After all, Andersen and Hoy are ardent cyclists. They spoke of how unnerving it is to have a bike lane be squeezed between a right-turn lane and a traffic lane, since vehicles can be on both sides of the person riding a bicycle. But Fernandez was concerned about traffic being able to move along as swiftly as possible.

Which shows that Peter Fernandez is wildly out of touch with the citizenry when it comes to protecting trees and the environment. And that makes him a very poor choice for Salem's Public Works Director.

NEXT DAY UPDATE: Someone just sent me a copy of an email from City Manager Steve Powers regarding this issue, plus a readable photo of the Notice of Hearing shown in a photo above. Here's what I said to Powers in an email a little while ago:
-----------------------------

Mr. Powers, since I wrote about the Salem Heights Avenue tree removal issue yesterday, someone just sent me your email denial that a permit was issued retroactively allowing the removal of five trees. You said, in part:

The developer prematurely removed trees from the Salem Heights Road right-of-way.  Staff has not decided to retroactively issue a permit for the removal of the trees.

However, I also got a photo of the Notice of Public Hearing that was attached to the utility pole in the neighborhood, which I didn’t have a clear image of until now. That notice says that the purpose of the hearing is to review the Public Works Director’s decision to approve a tree removal permit.

 

So please explain the discrepancy between what you have emailed to city councilors, and possibly also others, and what the Notice of Public Hearing says. I’m attaching the photo that I got, along with an enlarged screenshot of the portion I just quoted. Logically, either the Notice of Public Hearing was wrong, or your email was wrong. Which was it?

 

UPDATE TO UPDATE: I got this reply from Steve Powers. I thanked him for the correction to his earlier email, but told him both the developer and Peter Fernandez need to be held accountable for their failure to act in accord with the City Tree Code. Fernandez' malfeasance is especially outrageous, since he is responsible for enforcing the City Tree Code.

Mr. Hines,

Thank you for the question. Staff determined a permit was needed regardless of the timing of the tree removal.  The Public Works Director approved the developer’s  tree removal permit based on criteria in SRC 86.090(a)(8). In my earlier email I stated that no permit had been issued.  I regret the error in my earlier email.

Steve Powers

City Manager
City of Salem

Salem City Hall, where staff always are right and concerned citizens wrong

We here at the world headquarters of Salem Political Snark, which just happens to be Salem, Oregon, absolutely love well-reasoned factual blog posts with a healthy dose of snark.

Especially when those posts haven't been written by us. (Well, me, though there's always me, myself, and I, the unholy trinity.)

So here's a big snarky thumbs-up to the always-interesting Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger for including these lines in a post today, "City Council, August 24 - Nonsense on Broadway at Pine."

This is a real problem at the City. They have trouble admitting they are wrong. It sure seems like they dig in on every issue, every time.

Sure thing, City of Salem. You bet. We know you always tell the truth.

The nonsense being talked about is the stubborn determination of the Public Works Department to always assume that traffic volumes in Salem will increase forever and ever, thereby needing constant expensive road improvements at the expense of the environment, greenhouse gas emissions, and the safety of pedestrians/cyclists.

Thus the well-informed advice of Gary Obery, an expert on walking and biking safety at the Oregon Department of Transportation, that a right-turn lane isn't needed in a Broadway widening project is discounted because, as noted above, City of Salem staff think they always are right and concerned citizens wrong.

The Breakfast on Bikes blog post goes into considerable detail about why the staff report for Monday's City Council meeting is misguided. Here's the overarching right-on concern.

We'll zoom out a little and start with climate. The slow-moving train wreck that is our approach to climate is going to dwarf our problem with traffic violence. If our forthcoming Climate Action Plan is to be effective, it will have to influence, even determine, traffic planning. Currently we plan our roads as if there was no emergency on climate.

Two weeks ago Council tabled the matter of widening Broadway Street NW at Pine Street. The Oberys, Angela and Gary, had raised questions and Council wanted more information.

On the project the City published a Supplemental Report with an enumerated list of responses to the objections and concerns. One of the primary justifications for the turn lane is that we are planning for more driving.

But this is not at all where we need to be. Though there are problems with ODOT's "Every Mile Counts" program, even ODOT is beginning to see that we have to reduce driving. They dodge a little and say we need to "reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita," and of course what is necessary is a total reduction of VMT, not merely a per person reduction. The sum matters more than the rate here. But VMT reduction is on the table now at ODOT.

The City also needs to start talking about VMT reduction. We have to stop planning for more driving, and need to start planning for less driving. We will never hit our climate goals if our planning continues to assume as axiomatic that "traffic volumes are expected to grow."

A new turn lane goes in the wrong direction.

It sure does. And the insistence of City of Salem staff that a new turn lane is needed also shows how muddled things are at City Hall, where the City Manager, Steve Powers, has failed to do what his job title demands that he do -- manage his employees in accord with high-level goals set forth in the 2017 Strategic Plan.

Like...

Instead, Powers sits back in his City Manager easy chair and lets Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, carry on with the out-dated rule-of-thumb that Fernandez has been inflicting on Salem for many years: speeding traffic along as rapidly as possible takes precedence over reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So city staff can't take Gary Obery's expert opinion about the new turn lane seriously, because this would be a crack in the wall of the Public Works Department always being right about everything -- even when their wrongness is on full display, since a new turn lane is at odds with the City's own Strategic Plan.

The basic problem is that the people who should be in charge of things at City Hall aren't, while those who shouldn't be in charge are. 

Salem has a City Council with a 6-3 progressive majority. However, Salem has a strong City Manager/weak City Council system. Currently we're suffering through a weak City Manager, Steve Powers, who excels at bean-counting but not at making clear to his staff what beans most deserve to be planted and fertilized.

This leaves the bureaucracy free to do what bureaucrats do best: the same thing, over and over.

No matter that the Earth is warming dangerously. No matter that we humans have ten years, at most, to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. No matter that the initial greenhouse gas inventory for Salem showed that the transportation sector is the largest contributor to our carbon pollution.

Fernandez and Co. have always used now-outdated traffic planning rules, and they will keep on using them until the Earth goes up in flames unless a higher-up says, "Stop! We're doing things differently now. The internal combustion engine no longer is Salem's priority. The well-being of our people is."

In the absence of a City Manager capable and competent enough to lead Salem forward into the 21 century, rather than backward into the previous century, the City Council needs to serve as a check on the bureaucracy. So far, the council hasn't shown much interest in doing this.

The upcoming council meeting on August 24 will be a test of whether City of Salem staff get to continue to ignore the well-informed views of concerned citizens. Because sometimes a turn lane on Broadway is way more important than it seems, being a window into the desired future of Salem.

Salem City Council ignores City Council vote. What's going on here?

As Alice in Wonderland said, curiouser and curiouser. That's how I felt today about the Salem City Council after taking a closer look at the public records I got regarding the city's purchase of a house on Taybin Road in West Salem.

My first blog post based on the records was "Salem City Council bamboozled by staff on Taybin Road property purchase." But now I'm wondering if the council is bamboozling itself. Or at least, acting at odds with itself, which is much the same thing.

As background, below is an image showing the portion of Marine Drive that the West Salem Neighborhood Association wanted to have built, according to a 2017 Salem Breakfast on Bikes post. That post shared their position.

Amend the City of Salem budget to remove $3,542,920 of funding from the Project No. 711503 to construct Marine Drive from Glen Creek Road to Cameo Street and redirect the funding to Project No. 61463 to purchase right-of-way and begin construction of Marine Drive from 5th Avenue to Harritt Drive.

Note that Taybin Road is in the middle of the portion of a planned Marine Drive that the neighborhood association didn't want to have built. The arguments why this makes sense can be found in the Breakfast on Bikes post.

Now, let's fast forward to a June 10, 2019 City Council meeting where an amendment to the upcoming City of Salem budget was approved that said essentially the same thing: only acquire right-of-way for Marine Drive between 5th Avenue NW and River Bend Road NW, which meant don't acquire right of way south of Cameo Street at 5th Avenue.

Everything is straightforward so far. The City Council voted to only acquire right-of-way for a section of Marine Drive that clearly didn't include the portion around Taybin Road. 

But as I discussed in my previous post, the public records I got show that Peter Fernandez wanted to buy the Taybin Road house for Marine Drive right-of-way as early as 2017. It turned out not to be for sale at that time.

However, after Jim Vick bought the house and .9 acre lot for $200,000 in 2019, Fernandez and other city officials worked to do a "quick flip" of that transaction, eventually paying about double for what it cost Vick about six months previously.

Problem was, the City Council had voted to ban the use of transportation funds for purchasing right-of-way in the Taybin Road area where the house was located. So Fernandez' scheme to buy that property seemed to be stymied. 

Not really, though.

The Public Works Director and other city officials decided to use Stormwater SDC (system development charge) money to pay for the Taybin Road house, even though the public records show there was no intention to use the property for stormwater management, just for Marine Drive right-of-way.

How did Fernandez and Company get away with this? This is where things get curious. Meaning, even more curious than I described in my first post about the public records.

Now, we get into some City of Salem staff machinations. On June 10, 2019 the City Council had limited purchases of Marine Drive right-of-way to the area north of Cameo Street. Taybin Road was south of Cameo. Oops. What to do? 

Given the City Council order, it wouldn't be possible to use transportation funds to buy the Taybin Road property for Marine Drive right-of-way. One would think that this would have put an end to the efforts by city staff to do that. But if one thinks that, they don't undertand how wily City of Salem staff can be when they want to get around a City Council policy decision.

Dameron tells Vick's realtor that they need some time to find funding sources other than transportation funds.

A few weeks later, Dameron tells Mike, the realtor, that Peter Fernandez still wants to pursue the Taybin Road purchase but needs to use a different funding source, and wants to discuss it with the City Council as buying right of way for Marine Drive south of Cameo would "deviate from their direction."

I'd been assuming that when an Executive Session (private meeting of the City Council with staff to discuss the proposed property purchase) was held, Fernandez and other city officials downplayed the Marine Drive right-of-way reason for buying the Taybin Road house, since as noted above this conflicted with the June vote by the council to purchase right-of-way in that area.

Today, though, I noticed an email in the public records that had previously escaped my attention.

Well, damn! The plot to buy right-of-way in an area forbidden by the City Council was hiding in plain sight. Of course, I have no way of knowing if Fernandez and his co-conspirators were so open in what they told members of the City Council in the Executive Session. 

But since these seem to be the logical possibilities of what transpired at the secretive Executive Session, something is wrong under either possibility.

(1) Peter Fernandez and perhaps other city staff misled the City Council by falsely claiming that the primary reason for the Taybin Road purchase was for stormwater management, not Marine Drive right-of-way. This would have been a lie, so wrong. 

(2) Peter Fernandez and perhaps other city staff admitted that they wanted to use Stormwater SDC funds for a right-of-way purchase that had been forbidden by the City Council in June. When the Council went along with this, they were making a back-room deal with themselves, so wrong. 

I'm not sure which of these options is correct. Hopefully Executive Sessions aren't like Las Vegas, where whatever happens there, stays there.

The public needs to know whether city staff bamboozled the City Council, or whether the City Council is bamboozling citizens by agreeing in an Executive Session to buy Marine Drive right-of-way in an area that was put off-limits to such purchases by the action the council took in June 2019. Meaning, councilors were saying one thing in public about plans for Marine Drive, and doing another thing in private.

In either case, public trust has been trampled on. 

Salem City Council bamboozled by staff on Taybin Road property purchase

First, I'm delighted to, for what I think is the first time, use "bamboozled" in the title of a blog post.

It's an old-fashioned word, but entirely apt in this case, for City of Salem staff did indeed deceive members of the City Council by underhanded means -- along with the citizens who rely on public officials to do things in an honest, straightforward fashion.

I know this because yesterday, August 3, I finally received public records that I requested on June 28. So it took five weeks and $324.25 to get documents that confirmed what I and others strongly suspected:

The City of Salem purchase of a property at 298 Taybin Road NW in West Salem for about $400,000 wasn't really for a stormwater infrastructure purpose, but rather to buy right of way for a portion of Marine Drive that the City Council previously had said was off-limits for right of way purchase.

So, in short, the City Council got bamboozled because they trusted what Peter Fernandez (Public Works Director) and Clint Dameron (Real Property Services Manager) told them at a July 13 hearing on an appeal by E.M. Easterly of the city's use of stormwater System Development Charge money to buy the Taybin Road property.

Councilor Jackie Leung was the only one who voted in favor of the appeal. Good for her. She wasn't bamboozled,

My hope is that after they read this blog post, Mayor Bennett and the other members of the City Council will realize that, at the least, they should have been much more aggressive in challenging the glib answers of Fernandez and Dameron, and much more sympathetic to Easterly when he presented evidence that city staff had stonewalled his efforts to get information about the Taybin Road purchase that he needed for his appeal.

The day after the hearing I wrote "Five takeaways from a disturbingly strange Salem City Council hearing." Here's a particularly pertinent takeaway in light of the public records that I'll share and discuss below.

(4) A stormwater purchase should relate to a stormwater project, right? Not at City Hall. Easterly did his best to get city staff to answer questions about why, exactly, $400,000 in stormwater SDC funds were spent to buy the Taybin Road property and have a house on it demolished.

After all, an issue at the heart of his appeal was whether state law was followed in the purchase. Easterly told the council:

By law Stormwater SDC funds must be used for stormwater infrastructure improvements. The November staff report recommended the land purchase claiming the purchase supported “Reliable and Efficient Infrastructure” without describing that stormwater infrastructure and without explaining how or why Stormwater SDC funds may be utilized to facilitate “Natural Environment Stewardship”.

At the hearing Councilor Kaser, I think it was, asked Fernandez if anything had been done with the property in the four months since it supposedly was an "immediate need" for stormwater management. He answered that nothing had been done with it, other than demolishing the house that used to be on it.

Further, Fernandez didn't describe any specific future stormwater project planned for the property either. He said that sometime in the future, they might do something with the property, stormwater-wise. Or, maybe not. Ditto for its use as right of way for Marine Drive. That might happen. Or it might not.

If someone's spouse came home and said, "Honey, I just spent $400,000 on a lot," then couldn't provide any specific reason why the purchase was a good idea, likely there would be an intense discussion, to put it mildly. But the City Council, with the exception of Jackie Leung, who was the sole vote in favor of the appeal, just shrugged off the non-answer from Fernandez.

Like I said above, the council trusts city staff to do the right thing. Which is a really dangerous attitude for a City Council to take, because it makes staff think they can do anything and won't be held to account for it.

Well, I believe in holding City of Salem staff accountable. That's why I paid for public records related to the purchase of the Taybin Road property. Following are screenshots of key documents from five PDF files I got, along with my commentary on the documents.

The Taybin Road saga apparently began in December 2017 when Fernandez, the Public Works Director, expressed interest in buying one of two houses along the Marine Drive right-of-way after learning from a realtor the property might be for sale.

This is the portion of Marine Drive that was planned to accommodate Salem River Crossing bridge traffic, as I noted in a June blog post, "Shady staff associated with Salem City Council agenda item."

A key question is why Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, authorized purchase and removal of the house, possibly using the wrong source of funding. Well, maybe because the house was in the path of an approach to the Third Bridge that the Chamber of Commerce was promising would be resurrected with a record amount of campaign spending in the May 2020 City Council primary election. 

However, the election ended up with the same 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council, which meant that, for the foreseeable future, the dream of the Third Bridge that still holds sway among key City staff, the Mayor, and several city councilors will not come to pass.

Yet in October 2019 that dream seemed like it could become reality, if enough progressives were defeated in the upcoming 2020 City Council elections to turn a 6-3 majority into at least a 5-4 minority.

And in December 2017 that dream really seemed like it could become reality, which explains why Fernandez was interested in buying right-of-way for Marine Drive next to Wallace Marine Park. Steve refers to Steve Powers, the City Manager.

The owners at that time of 298 Taybin Road decided not to put the house on the market. However, somehow in 2019 the property was bought by Jim Vick, an attorney, for about $200,000. It's unclear why the City of Salem didn't attempt to buy it when it was for sale. Regardless, Dameron contacted the realtor representing the new owner, Vick, about doing a "quick flip" of his purchase. 

Once again, the only mention of why the city wanted this property related to Marine Drive, not to stormwater. 

Jim Vick, the new owner, responded by saying that he could substantially increase the value of the property, which included a large acre lot, by developing smaller lots and/or by building 4-plexes or greater to hold or sell. So even though he'd owned the Taybin Road property for just a few months, he wanted $420,000 for it. Again, Vick had paid about $200,000 for it.

Now, we get into some City of Salem staff machinations. On June 10, 2019 the City Council had limited purchases of Marine Drive right-of-way to the area north of Cameo Street. Taybin Road was south of Cameo. Oops. What to do? 

Given the City Council order, it wouldn't be possible to use transportation funds to buy the Taybin Road property for Marine Drive right-of-way. One would think that this would have put an end to the efforts by city staff to do that. But if one thinks that, they don't undertand how wily City of Salem staff can be when they want to get around a City Council policy decision.

Dameron tells Vick's realtor that they need some time to find funding sources other than transportation funds.

A few weeks later, Dameron tells Mike, the realtor, that Peter Fernandez still wants to pursue the Taybin Road purchase but needs to use a different funding source, and wants to discuss it with the City Council as buying right of way for Marine Drive south of Cameo would "deviate from their direction."

Five weeks later, Dameron tells the realtor that the City Council has given the go-ahead to move forward.

This is a bit confusing, because an Executive Session to approve the purchase happened in November, 2019, so I'm not sure what discussion with the City Council happened in September. Another email from Dameron says there was an Executive Session in September 2019, which seems to have been when a preliminary approval was given by the City Council.

It is unknown what staff told councilors in the Executive Sessions. There was no indication from discussion at the hearing that any specific need for stormwater improvements were identified by city staff, which fits with my strong belief that stormwater was a ruse to buy the property with SDC funds.

UPDATE: I just came across this additional email that shows city staff considered the Taybin Road purchase to be for Marine Drive right-of-way with no mention of stormwater.

A staff analysis for the July 13, 2020 hearing says that in October 2019 city staff recommended purchase of the Taybin Road property for stormwater purposes, which appears to be the first time stormwater had entered the conversation -- almost certainly because the City Council had closed off the possibility of using transportation funds to buy the property, and staff still wanted it as Marine Drive right of way.

Five weeks later Dameron is unclear what pot of money Fernandez said would be used to buy the property. He isn't sure that stormwater funds were going to be used. That's strange if stormwater management really was the reason the property was going to be purchased.

It isn't strange if the real reason was for Marine Drive right of way, and stormwater was used to bamboozle the City Council into approving the purchase.

A staff member then confirms that Stormwater SDC funds will cover the cost.

A November 7 staff report then says that Stormwater System Development Charges will be used for the purchase, which supposedly is needed for stormwater detention and, also, by the way, just in passing, future right-of-way for Marine Drive NW. 

Yes, the same right-of-way that the City Council had said shouldn't be bought south of Cameo, and that Public Works Director Fernandez had his eyes on back in 2017.

I'll end with another excerpt from my Five Takeaways blog post written after the City Council voted to deny the Easterly appeal even though no evidence was presented at the appeal that the Taybin Road property had been identified as being needed for a stormwater 
project, and zero progress toward using the property for this purpose had been made even though staff claimed it was an "immediate need."

(5) An executive session to discuss the property purchase was a sham. Glenn Davis and Peter Fernandez repeatedly talked about a November 2019 executive session where, I assume, the terms of the purchase were discussed, followed by City Council approval of the purchase. Easterly writes:

The November 2019 council authorization to purchase the Taybin parcel reflects Council reliance upon and trust in staff recommendations. The staff recommendation appears to be a continuation of staff abuse of discretion that has occurred over a number of years regarding the application of the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan policies and subordinate master plan policies.

I kept waiting for a city councilor to say something like, "Oh, now I remember. In the executive session staff explained that the reason for buying the property was to make these stormwater improvements to the area."

But no, there was nothing like that. Apparently city staff just said something like, "We want to buy the property with stormwater SDC funds" and the City Council obliged with few if any probing questions.

This is no way for a City Council to behave, as a lackey of staff rather than as an overseer of staff decisions and recommendations.

Salem Progressive Agenda survey results are an appealing vision

It's easy to get disheartened about the current state of our nation. So much disharmony, discord, and dissatisfaction with how things are going, 

So my spirits were boosted when I saw the results of a Salem Progressive Agenda survey of 103 citizens -- all progressives, not surprisingly, me being one of them. Here's the first question.

Now, likely some people in Salem will look at this and other questions (more accurately, statements) on the survey and think, "Yikes! I sure hope this doesn't happen!"

I could be wrong -- an ever-present possibility -- but my optimism leads me to think that most of the policies in the survey would appeal to a majority of Salem citizens. After all, polling shows that most Americans favor progressive policies even if they don't consider themselves progressives.

Anyway, have a look at the survey results via this PDF file.
Download Salem Progressive Agenda Survey Results

I'm impressed with how comprehensive and well-stated the 26 statements were. I couldn't think of anything to add to this progressive wish list, though other people did. You can read their comments at the end of the survey.

Thanks to Mark Wigg and Jim Scheppke for putting the survey together. It provides a road map for how Salem should improve. If local conservatives have a different vision, and I'm sure they do, it'd be great if they'd do something similar for their end of the political spectrum.

Each of the 26 progressive statements was agreed to by the 103 respondents, downtown parking being the only exception. I guess that isn't surprising, since this subject generates strong feelings on both sides of the free parking vs. parking meters divide.

Five takeaways from a disturbingly strange Salem City Council hearing

First off, let me assure you that by and large I think strange is good. That's why I had a Strange Up Salem column in Salem Weekly for three years and continue to maintain a Facebook page by that name. 

But watching a Salem City Council hearing last night on an appeal of the use of $400,000 worth of SDC (System Development Charge) funds to buy a property at 298 Taybin Road in West Salem left me with a decidedly uneasy sense of strangeness.

Something didn't feel right. 

This is my attempt to describe what bothered me about the hearing on E.M. Easterly's appeal of the city's decision. (See here and here for previous posts on this subject.)

As you can read below, there's something wrong with how the City Council interacts with concerned citizens and city staff. I've noticed this for a long time, but it became crystal clear last night how bad the problems are -- foremost among which is the fact that most members of the City Council don't seem concerned about this. 

With three new councilors joining the council in January, hopefully things will change for the better. Here's five takeaways from the hearing.

(1) City staff stonewalled Easterly's efforts to get information he needed for his appeal. Easterly started off with a brilliant summation of the basis for his appeal.
Download SW Oral Testimony Narrative Document #7

Let me be as blunt as possible I am charging the Public Works staff with a level of hubris fostered by decades of well-intended recommendations that, whether intentional or not, skated around adopted City policies and the City's legal obligations. The defendants in this appeal are those City staff members who disregarded their responsibilities to Council and inappropriately recommended the use of Stormwater SDC funds to purchase the Taybin property.

The relationship between staff and Council must be one of trust. Council relies upon accurate and legally correct information from staff. The staff recommendation which council adopted last November to purchase a parcel of land in West Salem was an inappropriate application of staff's discretionary responsibility.

...Transparency is missing; the decision-making body (City Council) has not been fully advised. This pattern of ignoring inconvenient City policies and procedures and not following the rule of law is not new; indeed, it has been acknowledged by City legal staff.

Therefore, my appeal this evening focuses upon the City staff's abuse of discretion when applying Council adopted policies and procedures and staff's failing to provide full and transparent disclosure of the information and reasoning which support its recommended action.

Easterly listed 25 questions he submitted to City staff that were ignored over a four-month period. Yet the slogan of the City of Salem is "At Your Service."

That's untrue. Glenn Davis, Peter Fernandez, and other City staff did a marked disservice to Easterly by stonewalling his requests for information.
Download SW Unanswered questions II

(2) Concerned citizens should be viewed as heroes, not villains. People like Easterly who spend months trying to hold city staff and the City Council accountable for their actions should be applauded. Yet it is clear that staff, and to a lesser extent the council also, viewed Easterly as an annoyance to be brushed away.

This is wrong.

Easterly is akin to an explorer who ventures deep into the jungle of the City of Salem bureaucracy and returned with tales of what he found there. His report should have been met with concern by city councilors and the City Manager.

They could have said, "Mr. Easterly, I'm sorry you had such a problem getting information you needed for your appeal. We want to meet with you and figure out ways we can do things better."

But, no. There was none of that. This is the sign of an organization that hunkers down in a defensive crouch when critics point out flaws in city operations rather than viewing criticism as an opportunity to improve.

(3) The City Council has way too much trust in city staff. There is no ombudsperson at the City of Salem, no equivalent of the Inspectors General who look into misdeeds by federal agencies. The City Council is who citizens look to for oversight of city operations. 

But last night I heard councilors glibly say, "I guess we have to trust city staff." Huh? The same city staff who stonewalled Easterly's efforts to get information about the Taybin Road purchase for supposed stormwater purposes is to be trusted when they provide information to city councilors? 

What leads them to believe that?

There was plenty of opportunity to ask probing questions of staff. Easterly provided 25 of them. Yet as described below, the most basic questions about the Taybin Road purchase went either unanswered, or unremarked on when disturbing answers were provided last night.

(4) A stormwater purchase should relate to a stormwater project, right? Not at City Hall. Easterly did his best to get city staff to answer questions about why, exactly, $400,000 in stormwater SDC funds were spent to buy the Taybin Road property and have a house on it demolished.

After all, an issue at the heart of his appeal was whether state law was followed in the purchase. Easterly told the council:

By law Stormwater SDC funds must be used for stormwater infrastructure improvements. The November staff report recommended the land purchase claiming the purchase supported “Reliable and Efficient Infrastructure” without describing that stormwater infrastructure and without explaining how or why Stormwater SDC funds may be utilized to facilitate “Natural Environment Stewardship”.

At the hearing Councilor Kaser, I think it was, asked Fernandez if anything had been done with the property in the four months since it supposedly was an "immediate need" for stormwater management. He answered that nothing had been done with it, other than demolishing the house that used to be on it.

Further, Fernandez didn't describe any specific future stormwater project planned for the property either. He said that sometime in the future, they might do something with the property, stormwater-wise. Or, maybe not. Ditto for its use as right of way for Marine Drive. That might happen. Or it might not. 

If someone's spouse came home and said, "Honey, I just spent $400,000 on a lot," then couldn't provide any specific reason why the purchase was a good idea, likely there would be an intense discussion, to put it mildly. But the City Council, with the exception of Jackie Leung, who was the sole vote in favor of the appeal, just shrugged off the non-answer from Fernandez.

Like I said above, the council trusts city staff to do the right thing. Which is a really dangerous attitude for a City Council to take, because it makes staff think they can do anything and won't be held to account for it.

(5) An executive session to discuss the property purchase was a sham. Glenn Davis and Peter Fernandez repeatedly talked about a November 2019 executive session where, I assume, the terms of the purchase were discussed, followed by City Council approval of the purchase. Easterly writes:

The November 2019 council authorization to purchase the Taybin parcel reflects Council reliance upon and trust in staff recommendations. The staff recommendation appears to be a continuation of staff abuse of discretion that has occurred over a number of years regarding the application of the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan policies and subordinate master plan policies.

I kept waiting for a city councilor to say something like, "Oh, now I remember. In the executive session staff explained that the reason for buying the property was to make these stormwater improvements to the area."

But no, there was nothing like that. Apparently city staff just said something like, "We want to buy the property with stormwater SDC funds" and the City Council obliged with few if any probing questions.

This is no way for a City Council to behave, as a lackey of staff rather than as an overseer of staff decisions and recommendations.

That gets me to a message I sent E.M. Easterly last night as a first attempt to digest what happened at the hearing. I'll include it as a continuation to this post.

My basic point is that the council is unduly intertwined with city staff. For example, at last night's hearing, city staff were defending their actions while also providing information to the council, an obvious conflict of interest. They got to interact with the council to a much greater degree than Easterly did.

City staff appear to be undermining Salem City Council policies

A seemingly insignificant item on the July 13 City Council meeting agenda is a window into a really important question: are City of Salem staff undermining City Council priorities through shadowy, if not sleazy, administrative schemes? It sure seems so.

Best undermining cartoon I could find.
Substitute city staff for tunnel digger and City Council for people standing on top.

On June 18 I wrote a blog post called "Shady stuff associated with Salem City Council agenda item." The agenda item was postponed, and a hearing on the appeal by E.M. Easterly of the city's purchase of a house at 298 Taybin Road NW was scheduled for next Monday's council meeting.

Easterly is one of those unsung heroes who cast light on dubious actions by government officials that otherwise would go unnoticed. He has dug deep into the geeky details of the Taybin Road purchase, forcing city staff to defend what may turn out to be indefensible.

With the passage of three weeks, the shadiness of the house purchase has gotten even darker. Here's four perspectives on this issue that provide a good overview of the various levels of concern the City Council should have about what city staff have done.

First, I got these thoughts today from a fellow citizen activist who prefers to remain anonymous. This is the highest level of concern -- whether city staff are deliberately undermining City Council policies regarding the construction of Marine Drive in West Salem.

A Race Between the City Council and the City Administration -- Operate in a Parallel Universe

 

Institutional resistance is common when new leadership takes over an organization, but what the Salem City Council faces with the current City management could be characterized as indifference or complete disregard. It is one thing for the Council to set policy, but it is another thing for management to interpret that policy as it sees fit.

 

Unless there is accountability, future City Council votes may be meaningless.

 

Since June 10, 2019 when the City Council voted to use $3.6 million to route a future City street called Marine Drive through one of two alignments, the City management has made more progress on the alignment that was not approved by the City Council. Here is the status update on each route.

 

Percent Surveyed --  The City has recently surveyed part of the alignment that the City Council voted against.

Percent Appraised -- The City has paid for appraisal reports on property the City voted against buying.

Percent Purchased -- The only property actually purchased so far is for the "wrong" alignment and is the subject of the appeal hearing on Monday. The City Council has approved three agreements to buy right-of-way, but none have closed other than along the 'wrong" alignment.

Houses Displaced -- City Administration 1 of 6 and Council zero of two.

Cost per SF -- City Council has approved spending no more than $5.10 per square foot on the Council alignment and City Administration paid over $8 (I will confirm exact amount) per square foot on their alignment.

 

It is a race between the unelected City administration and the elected City Council to purchase their own version of Marine Drive. As of the middle of July 2020 and 13 months into the race, the City administration is winning.

 

But how can the City bureaucrats be buying property for a street that is not supported by a majority of the City Council, when the City Council has the "power of the purse"?  The answer so far is that City management use another source of money and justify the purchase for a yet-to-be-identified other purpose related to stormwater.

 

The reason this is all coming to a head in front of the City Council on Monday, July 13, is because the City administration had to be "creative" in finding a source of money and a citizen activist, E.M. Easterly, is using state law to get the attention of the City Council in an appeal hearing to stop the City from using a dedicated funding source that might be inappropriate.  

 

Second, here's public testimony submitted by Mark Wigg on the Taybin Road house purchase appeal.

Dear Mayor and City Council,

The purchase of this property raises many questions that are not addressed in the staff report of June 2, 2020.

Staff learned of a development planned for this property in 2017 when it was owned by Charlotte Wilson, who was 74 years old at the time. Did Ms. Wilson submit plans for development to the city? The City hears many rumors of developments that do not proceed beyond rumor. What record does the City have that a development was imminent?

(1) In March of 2019, Ms. Wilson died. If the City was worried about a development on the property, why didn’t the City negotiate with the executor of the estate to obtain the property? The property sold in May of 2019 for $199,500. 

(2) The City agreed to purchase the property in October, 2019 for $401,765. Where is the City’s appraisal for the property? Did the City consider using condemnation to acquire the property for less than this amount? The City agreed to pay twice the purchase price of the property less than six months after it was purchased by JDV Investments.  Some people may think this deal smells a little fishy.

(3) The Staff Report states that the purchase was needed for immediate use for stormwater detention and stream bank conservation. Where are the City’s plans for making this a stormwater detention facility? How does the City know that this is the best property for a stormwater detention facility if no plans for the facility have been developed? The city could have required any development of the property to protect the streambank and slough?

(4) Who specifically at the City negotiated the price and determined the need to purchase this property?

(5) When purchasing right of way for Marine Drive north of Cameo, how often did the City pay over 200% of appraised or recent sales price? If 200% over appraisal is the new standard for property acquisition, the City should let everyone know.

The City should not be spending money foolishly. This purchase was not needed. The City Manager needs to follow up on this serious error in judgment by making the property acquisition process based less on whim and rumor and more on facts. This type of transaction makes people think that the City favors some people over others and may be corrupt.

Mark Wigg

UPDATE: It looks even more like City of Salem staff, in the person of Glenn Davis, the city's chief development engineer, are stonewalling attempts to find out what happened with the highly suspicious Taybin Road house purchase. Here's screenshots of an email exchange between E.M. Easterly and Glenn Davis. Easterly wants answers to pertinent questions. Davis says, in effect, get lost.

Third, here's public testimony on the appeal submitted by Linda Bierly. "SDC" refers to System Development Charges.

Mayor Bennett and Councilors:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Agenda Item 4.a, the Public Hearing on Appeal of System Development Charge Expenditure.

I support Mr. Easterly's appeal of the use of Stormwater System Development Charge (SDC) funds for the purchase of real property at 298 Taybin Road NW.

Public works staff makes the argument that this property was purchased for stormwater detention and streambank conservation. If this is true, project details have yet to be provided. This purchase is not identified in the 309 list of stormwater projects and the $400,000 price tag exceeds the 5% contingency allowance for small projects in the West Bank. 

The staff report also states "possible future use for Marine Drive NW construction."  

It is my understanding that City Council has rejected routing the future Marine Drive from Glen Creek Road NW to Cameo Street NW. Rather, Council has supported a more direct (and much more cost effective) route for the future Marine Drive utilizing the existing 5th Avenue NW to connect to Marine Drive at the Cameo St. NW / 5th Street NW intersection, thereby sparing Wallace Marine Park, Pioneer Village, and Willamette Slough the environmental, noise, and safety impacts that road construction and the road itself would inevitably bring.

I hope you will also look at the context of this transaction that appears to have cost the City far more money that it should have, was justified by vague and undefined stormwater plans and, inexplicably, includes the possibility of funding a defunct transportation project with Stormwater SDC monies. If the construction of Marine Drive through this property somehow materialized, the Stormwater SDC fund was to have been reimbursed with Transportation SDCs. 

Please support Mr. Easterly's appeal. It is to the public's advantage that transactions of this nature receive far greater public scrutiny than staff provided. It is to the public's advantage that the entire Stormwater SDC process and use of this fund is more transparent.  

Currently, it appears to be far too easy to hide motive and cost in bureaucratic legalese and without folks like Mr. Easterly calling attention to process, to simply slip an extra $400,000.00 into budgetary business as usual.  

Linda Bierly
Ward 8

Fourth, and lastly, here's a summary of E.M. Easterly's appeal sent to me by Easterly.

Executive Summary of Salem Stormwater SDC  Expenditure Appeal

• This appeal addresses the inaccurate policy assumptions and fuzzy procedural practices of Salem City staff seeking to use “unspecified” Stormwater SDC moneys to purchase land without actually affirming that the purchase complied with the Salem Stormwater Master Plan and State statutes. The recommendation and initial generalizations are described by Easterly as an abuse of staff discretion. See Easterly Document #7.
• November 2019: City of Salem staff recommended the purchase of land along the edge of Wallace Marine Park in West Salem with Salem Stormwater SDC funds.
• The Salem City Council authorized the land purchase.
• March 2020: E.M. Easterly reviewed the above staff purchase recommendation against the 2000 Salem Stormwater Master Plan. Easterly learned:
• (a) the recommended land purchase was not included in the stormwater project list for the West Bank basin,
• (b) the land purchase was not included in the 2019-2020 Stormwater SDC expenditure budget, and
• (c) staff claimed mid fiscal year Stormwater SDC “unspecified” moneys were an eligible expenditure resources and expendable without Council budget modification. 
• Easterly challenged the staff claim and asked for historical evidence of prior Council authorizations of  mid-year expenditure of Stormwater SDC funds on non-budgeted projects.
• May 2020: City Attorney Atchison identified the 2000 Salem Stormwater Master Plan 5% pipes and ditches conveyance allowance as the actual source of the SDC funds.  
• Easterly challenged the Atchison claim on multiple levels. 
• (a) The total West Bank Basin 5% conveyance allowance allocation was less than the land purchase price. 
• (b) The pipes and ditches project description in the 2000 Salem Stormwater Master Plan provided no evidence that a land purchase and dwelling removal qualified.
• (c) Questions were raised seeking evidence to support whether the Stormwater SDC expenditure met the requirements of the Stormwater Master Plan and State statutes. 
• June 2020: Staff issued a report to Council declaring the Stormwater SDC expenditure “... is consistent with the allowance for small projects …” by declaring the 5% allowance for small projects was system wide rather than a basin by basin allocation.  The Easterly Document #4 disputes that interpretation and raises additional questions staff has never answered.