Salem Political Snark

Peter Fernandez' retirement is good news for Salem

Peter Fernandez, the thoroughly sleazy Public Works Director for the City of Salem, announced he's retiring effective January 6, 2023. 

This is cause for joy among those of us who follow goings-on at City Hall closely enough to be aware of what a disaster Fernandez has been during the fifteen years Salem has had to put up with his lies, dissembling, and poor decisions.

It's remarkable that Fernandez wasn't fired long ago, given how poorly he's performed as Public Works Director. This shows that Salem is willing to put up with a lot of crap, so long as the crap-producer is part of the Good Old Boys/Girls Network.

Hopefully the new City Manager, Keith Stahley, will hire a replacement for Fernandez who is much better suited for the job -- ideally someone who isn't now a Public Works manager, since those people have the stench of Fernandez associated with them.

From what I've said so far, does it sound like I can't stand Peter Fernandez? I sure hope so, since that's exactly how I feel.

Here's nine blog posts that I've written about Fernandez' failings. The first one set the stage for my subsequent criticisms of Fernandez, so I'll share a fairly lengthy excerpt from that post.

Sad stump with flower memorial to needless killing of this U.S. Bank tree

(1) Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

Allbritton got an unusual second chance to argue his extremely flimsy tree-killing case. He lobbied city councilors, who weren't bothered by Allbritton's mention of the verbal promise.

Maybe because this is the way the City of Salem habitually does things under its current leadership -- working out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then going through a show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

Like I say throughout the report, outrageous. There's more juicy details in the 18 pages, of course.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

The report includes an opinion letter from my land use and environmental law attorney which demolishes (1) Public Works Director Fernandez' false claim that he was obligated by an ordinance to allow the trees to be cut down, and (2) the repeated inaccurate assertion by City staff that Fernandez' decision couldn't be appealed. 

(2) Why Salem's Public Works Director should be fired

(3) City Manager is OK with a developer illegally removing trees

(4) Salem City Council bamboozled by staff on Taybin Road property purchase

(5) Neighborhood association criticizes city officials for not enforcing tree ordinance

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

(7) Shady stuff associated with Salem City Council agenda item

(8) Devastating critique of Salem's Urban Forester program by a job applicant

(9) Key questions remain about Salem's botched response to toxic algae water problem

Why Salem's Public Works Director should be fired

A few days ago I ended a blog post with a call to fire Peter Fernandez, the decidedly unethical Public Works Director for the City of Salem. 

Peter Fernandez

Today I got this message from Mark Wigg. Apparently Wigg planned to present what follows as testimony at tonight's City Council meeting. It provides a further reason for Peter Fernandez to be fired.

Congratulations, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez

Congratulations on spending all the 2008 bond money allocated for buying Marine Drive right of way without buying all the right of way.

The other projects identified in the bond measure were aggressively pursued and finished years ago. Because many projects were started immediately after the bond measure passed and when we were in a recession, many of the projects were completed under budget.

Delaying the purchase of right of way for 13 years will cost the city millions of dollars, but you got to settle a personal vendetta, you won.

Years ago, one of your emissaries told me that you were going to make sure that volunteers could not construct a path along the right of way for Marine Drive. At that time, the $3.2 million allocated for right of way purchase would have been enough to buy all the right of way from Cameo Street to River Bend Road.

I was promoting the use of the right of way as a linear park that would allow the thousands of people along Wallace Road a more attractive, quicker, and safer way to get downtown. 

Volunteers had constructed paths at Fairmont Park, on the Croisan Scenic Way right of way, and at Skyline Park. I had told city council that volunteers would have a trail constructed on the right of way within weeks of it being purchased.

At that time, I opposed the third bridge that Peter supported. Peter wanted to punish people that opposed the third bridge by delaying the purchase of right of way.

Congratulations Peter, you have reaffirmed that you run the city, not the City Manager, Mayor, or city council. You will not be held accountable for the decision to delay right of way purchases 13 years, a decision that will cost the citizens of Salem millions of dollars.

In addition to Salem’s taxpayers, the losers also include those thousands of people who would have enjoyed the paths on the Marine Drive right of way, right of way that could also have been used for community gardens by the adjacent apartment complexes.  

Paths and community gardens build healthy communities, add value to properties, encourage healthy lifestyles, and reduce pollution. People in Salem will probably never know what they lost, and you won’t be held accountable.

Mark Wigg

I first learned what a horrible Public Works Director Fernandez is back in 2013, when Fernandez was instrumental in letting the US Bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful trees next to his downtown building for no good reason.

The sordid details of what Fernandez did were shared in a detailed factual report I wrote after getting public records related to the tree killings. 

This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

Allbritton got an unusual second chance to argue his extremely flimsy tree-killing case. He lobbied city councilors, who weren't bothered by Allbritton's mention of the verbal promise.

Maybe because this is the way the City of Salem habitually does things under its current leadership -- working out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then going through a show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

More recently, Fernandez has been involved in other questionable dealings. You can read all about it in these blog posts.

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

Shady stuff associated with Salem City Council agenda item

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

Neighborhood association criticizes city officials for not enforcing tree ordinance

Flooding in Battle Creek area needs to be taken seriously

Here's another tale of how staff in the City of Salem Public Works Department are failing to be open, honest, and transparent with citizens.

Earlier this year I reported that documents received from a public records request proved that Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, and other staff lied about why a property on Taybin Road in West Salem was slated for purchase.

Fernandez, et. al, claimed it was for stormwater management. Actually, it was to buy right of way for Marine Drive in an area that the City Council had declared off-limits for ROW purchases.

So the credibility of city staff when it comes to stormwater (and other subjects also, like trees) is very shaky.

Keep this in mind when you read how Lora Meisner, a community activist in the Battle Creek area, describes the controversy over how seriously the City of Salem is taking the risk of flooding in that area. (Last year I wrote "Tell City officials you want Battle Creek Park to be left natural," which relates to this issue.)

This is a complex subject. Thus after Meisner and I spoke by phone, she sent me this brief summary of what's going on here.

City: “We’re doing all we can, we’re going to dig up detention ponds on Battle Creek to hold the flood water.”

Taxpayers: “So you’re counting on detention ponds which may take years to put in place depending on if all funding comes through and if/when the city has time. Doesn’t it make more sense to turn off/turn down the water faucet instead of installing more bath tubs? What happens when bath tubs are full?”

City: “They’ll never be full and the groundwater that will come up into the ponds initially will slowly seep out into Battle Creek. We have a model that shows these ponds can handle it even with “full build out.”

Taxpayers: “Really? Isn’t this modeling based mainly on past data? Because if you were using 'climate change projected rainfall impact”\' from the First Street Foundation projections which are found on Realtor.com web site, they show a very different story. According to people who served on the Storm Water Committee, they were told about it but city staff hid this information because developers/realtors who served on the Committee wanted to keep the info under wraps so as not to impact real estate here in Salem. How can city officials justify this lack of transparency?”

City: “Because we paid big bucks to a consultant who, based on the information WE gave him, shows everything will be OK.”

Taxpayers: “So you’re not going to deal with turning the faucet off or turning it down even though several years ago 1 inch of rain equaled 1 foot rise in Battle Creek and now less than 1 inch rain equals almost a 2 foot rise in the streams. I guess our tax dollars should go to paying for math lessons for the Public Works Department."

Much greater detail about the flooding concerns of people in the Battle Creek area can be found in a letter regarding changes to the Stormwater Management Plan submitted by SGNA, the South Gateway Neighborhood Association, to the Mayor and City Council on September 21, 2020. 
Download 9.21.20 SGNA Comments on Stormwater Management Plan

Here's an excerpt from the SGNA letter that talks about a key concern.

The FEMA flood maps for the Battle Creek Basin were developed from FEMA modeling done in the 1960s. This aged modeling has been used to regulate and approve the stormwater management in the basin for the past 50 years. Based on the 1996 and 2012 storm events SGNA residents have personal experience with how this planning has failed to protect the community.

The proposed Stormwater Master Plan looks at the Battlecreek Basin, for the first time using modern engineering methods, and identifies the issues that residents have stated to the Council and Public Works since 2007. 

“The old plan is not working. The creeks are beyond capacity. Turn the water off, please!”

We encourage adoption of this Stormwater Master Plan as it relates to the Battle Creek Basin. The City Code needs to reflect the findings identified, particularly changes related to storm duration. The current Salem Code uses a “24 hour Design Storm” language. The research used to identify stormwater issues in the plan demonstrate the failure of this metric to reflect the type of impact the two recent storm events had on the community. We strongly recommend the use of a 72 hour 100 year storm metric with detention on sight [sic] of large projects when the flow rate downstream will be increased greater than 350 cfs beyond current conditions.  

In other words, my understanding is that city staff are resisting making flooding predictions based on current knowledge about how global warming is affecting rainfall in our area. Around the country "100 year floods" are going to happen much more often, sometimes every year.

I took a look at some background information Meisner shared with me. A New York Times opinion piece shows the greatest risk from climate change faced by different parts of the country. Here's a screenshot for Marion County. The greatest risk is extreme rainfall.

Another New York Times story is called "New Data Reveals Hidden Flood Risk Across America." Here's a screenshot for Marion County. It shows the difference between outdated FEMA estimates and more accurate maps from the First Street Foundation.

I checked out the First Street Foundation web site. You can put in an address and get a Flood Factor estimate for that place. The web page wouldn't recognize the Battle Creek Park address (1680 Waln Drive SE) so I used the address for Battle Creek Elementary School instead (1640 Waln Drive SE). 

Here's the result.

Bottom line: residents in the Battle Creek area appear justified in their concern that city officials are downplaying the risk of serious flooding in their neighborhood. Climate change needs to be taken into account when updating city ordinances and plans related to stormwater management. 

If this means restricting development in flood prone areas, or increasing SDCs (System Development Charges) paid by developers, so be it. It isn't fair to have home and business owners pay the price when their property is flooded. The cost of mitigating extreme rainfall  events needs to be shared equitably.

As forests burn, Salem parks board OK's cutting trees without a permit

It was quite a juxtaposition last night.

While wildfires burn forests across Oregon, I watched the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB) say "no problem" to a developer cutting down two large White Oak trees without a permit, after which Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, granted an after-the-fact tree removal permit 105 days after those trees, and three others, were removed.

This was a horrible decision for reasons I'll describe below. The only good news is that the vote to deny an appeal by the Southwest Association of Neighbors (SWAN)  of the after-the-fact permit being issued was close, 5 to 3.

The three members of the SPRAB board who did the right thing were Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris. The five SPRAB members who said cutting down trees in a public right of way without a permit is OK were Alan Alexander, Woody Dukes, Dylan McDowell, Paul Rice, and David Fridenmaker.

There was a lot of discussion about the merits of the SWAN appeal. Here's what bothered me about the final 5-3 vote to deny the appeal, which you can read here.

(1) This establishes a disturbing precedent. Glenn Davis, a Public Works Department employee, said that it is common for electrical, plumbing, and other permits to be issued after someone has started work without a permit. That was surprising news, but in those cases unsatisfactory work can be reversed.

Davis said that the City of Salem has never issued a tree removal permit after the trees already had been cut down. Thus the bad SPRAB decision sets a disturbing precedent: developers now know that they can cut protected trees first, and get a permit later.

In this case, Thomas Kay was the developer who failed to follow the rules and got a permit anyway. From now on, other developers may do the same. It's crazy that a majority of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members thought this was a good thing.

(2) The appeal process was blatantly unfair. In my experience, appeals of a decision by a government body give equal time to the person(s) making the appeal and those who made the decision being appealed. But last night Glenn Davis and Thomas Cupani, a City of Salem attorney, got way more time than Ted Burney, who argued the SWAN case in favor of the appeal.

For a long time I thought Cupani was an attorney for the developer, Thomas Kay, since he kept defending the tree removals without a permit. Eventually I realized that he was an attorney with the City of Salem. Since the Public Works Department is part of the City of Salem, this meant that the developer's representative and the two city staff were on the same legal side.

Somehow it didn't seem strange to the SPRAB members that they were hearing from the defendants of the appeal hugely more than from those who supported the appeal -- Burney and several residents of the Salem Heights Avenue neighborhood where the trees were cut down without a permit.

(3) A central basis for the appeal was ignored. In the dystopian 1984 novel by George Orwell, it was said "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Discussion at the meeting I watched last night didn't rise to quite that level of absurdity, but it was close.

One oft-heard argument basically was The trees were cut down without a permit, so it makes sense to issue an after-the-fact permit to remove the trees, since they already have been cut down. The more sensible counter-argument was, How can you issue a tree removal permit for trees that don't exist?

A SPRAB member who voted in favor of the appeal noted that this is akin to someone adding money to a parking meter after it has expired. That won't stop you from getting a ticket if the violation was discovered by a meter patrol person. However, the SPRAB board was fine with granting a tree removal permit to a developer after the trees had been cut down illegally.

(4) Reasonable alternatives existed to removing the trees. With the time he was given (again, much less than what those supporting issuance of the after-the-fact permit got) Ted Burney did an excellent job explaining why reasonable alternatives existed to cutting down the two White Oaks and another tree on public property.

If the developer had applied for a permit before the trees were removed, those alternatives could have been considered by City of Salem staff. Burney described how a slight change in the alignment of street improvements would have left room for the White Oaks to remain.

Sure, perhaps that would have been impractical. But it might have worked. We'll never know. Burney quoted from a city ordinance that says reasonable alternatives must be explored before street trees are removed. City staff claimed that previous land use decisions ruled out any alternative other than cutting the trees down.

However, it seems indisputable that the land use process and the tree removal permit process are separate legal entities. The SWAN neighborhood association and others who wanted to save the trees should have had a chance to argue their case before the trees were cut down, not afterward. 

(5) A Public Works inspector watched the trees being cut down without a permit. A final disturbing fact that came out last night was brought up by the developer's representative. He said that a Public Works inspector was on the site as the trees were cut down and didn't say a thing as they were removed without a permit.

Glenn Davis made a feeble attempt to excuse this by saying that inspectors are looking for other things, like whether erosion control measures are being carried out. 

So apparently staff sent out by the Public Works Department to inspect what's going on at a construction site don't care whether a permit has been issued for the work. I find this hard to believe. Seemingly the most important thing an inspector should do is determine whether what's been done is legal.

But not at the City of Salem.

Lastly, here's some comments on a post regarding the SPRAB vote on the Salem Tree Advocates Facebook page. I heartily agree with them. I've corrected a few typos.

I think that SPRAB's majority decision to go along with the Public Works Director decision to retroactively approve a tree removal permit without any expression of disapproval really disqualifies it from any role as a public advocate or watchdog for our trees. SPRAB is clearly too captive to staff to think outside of the framework that they're provided with. Thanks to members Micki Varney, Tony Caito, and Keith Norris, who hopefully represent SPRAB's future. And thanks, too, to Counselor Vanessa Nordyke, for advancing the idea of an urban forest commission.

The city is no longer worthy of the Tree City designation. I am disappointed they have betrayed our trust.

This sends a huge message to developers to just cut down trees at will and ask Peter [Fernandez] after the fact for forgiveness. At minimum there should have been a huge fine.

Developers already realize they can get away with virtually anything while operating in the kingdom of Peter Fernandez. The developer in this case, Thomas Kay, did virtually the same thing several years ago in my West Salem neighborhood. In that case, his permit required him to save a number of trees in a beautiful Doug Fir grove. The first thing he did was to cut them down!!

Although his name was never uttered, throughout last night's hearing there was continual reference to "The Director" who, in the context of Salem government, is synonymous with "The Dictator". Salem's counterpart to Attorney General Barr, Thomas Cupani, twisted and otherwise made a mockery of Salem Ordinances. So long as Peter Fernandez continues his roughshod rule over Salem's City government our "Tree City" certification should be suspended, as noted above. While Micki Varney and two other members of SPRAB, Tony and Keith, bravely sought to follow our ordinances, rules and regulation, the other 5 members cowardly crumbled when confronted by Fernandez' thuggish henchmen.

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. 

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.  

Shady stuff associated with Salem City Council agenda item

By and large, I'm no conspiracy theorist. But I'm always ready to believe that when it comes to goings-on with the City of Salem, what appears innocent and boring at first glance may be the tip of a non-innocent non-boring "iceberg" below the surface.

So I said "sure" when someone asked if I wanted to learn the backstory behind an appeal of a Systems Development Charge expenditure for the purchase of a house at 298 Taybin Road NW in West Salem. The appeal is on the agenda of the June 22 Salem City Council meeting.

Before getting to the backstory, here's the first outrageous thing that caught my eye when I looked at the appeal agenda item. The staff recommendation to reject the appeal comes from Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director -- who also happens to be the person at the center of the controversial decision to purchase the Taybin Road property. 

Sure, this is common in government bodies. The person who did something that you're upset with, and want to appeal, turns out to be the person who will initially review the appeal. But just because a practice is common doesn't make it right.

Hopefully the members of the City Council understand that when they see a staff analysis recommending denial of an appeal, often, if not usually, there is a decided conflict of interest at play.

Another outrage is that I've been told the City Recorder will not allow the appellant, E.M. Easterly, to appear for his hearing.  So the City staff get to address the Council using video but Easterly can only submit written testimony (currently City Council meetings are virtual, being streamed online, with no in-person audience).

This seems crazy. Zoom can handle dozens, or even hundreds, of participants. Other city councils are allowing people to testify online. Why isn't the City of Salem doing this?

NEXT DAY UPDATE: Just heard that the City attorney will overrule the City Recorder and will allow Easterly to speak via video. Good news.

At any rate, the appeal to be discussed next Monday involves whether the correct pot of money was used to purchase the house at 298 Taybin Road NW. More correctly, the house that used to be at this address, since I was told that Peter Fernandez had it torn down before closing on January 20, 2020.

The City of Salem paid $402,000 for the 832 square foot house, which Zillow estimates was worth $215,000. (City paid $375,000 for the house and $26,765 to have the house demolished.) I've heard that attorney Jim Vick bought the house for about $200,000 and resold it to the City for close to twice the price within six months, a pretty darn good return on investment. [NOTE: initially I had a "Bob Vick" as the seller of the property, but someone has sent me documentation that it was Jim Vick, also an attorney.]

(The City Council might want to ask staff why the price paid for this house was so high.)

A staff analysis prepared for the appeal says why the house was purchased. I've boldfaced a provocative part.

In October 2019, staff recommended to Council acquisition of this parcel for immediate use as stormwater detention, streambank conservation, and possible future use for Marine Drive NW construction. Given its immediate planned use, staff recommended use of Stormwater System Development Charge funds for its acquisition. Future use of the western portion of the parcel for transportation purposes would require reimbursement to the Stormwater SDC fund for that portion of the property.

That mention of Marine Drive NW leads into the most interesting part of the backstory, as expressed in the following theory.

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.

What I've been told is that on June 10, 2019, the City Council directed City staff not to buy right-of-way that includes 298 Taybin Road when it adopted a motion from Councilor Kaser to buy property for Marine Drive from 5th Ave and Cameo Street to River Bend Road. 

So the nearly $3.6 million of 2008 Streets and Bridges Bond Funds could not be used to buy 298 Taybin. Thus, goes the theory, Peter Fernandez reached into his bag of funding tricks and picked a source of funding that, according to the E.M. Easterly appeal, is not appropriate.

Further, the Proposed Budget Book 1, page 204, that is up for final approval at Monday's City Council meeting still states that the approximate $3.6 million carryover funding for Marine Drive is to initiate street improvements from Glen Creek to Cameo, which is counter to Kaser's adopted motion.

 

This seems to show that City of Salem staff really want Marine Drive to go east of Pioneer Village and along the edge of Wallace Marine Park. It is as if those staff either did not notice the City Council decision on June 10, 2019 to purchase Marine Drive Right of Way between 5th Ave and River Bend Road, or they just want to keep ignoring the role of the City Council in setting policy for the City of Salem.

 

To me, what's most concerning about the purchase of the Taybin Road house is that on June 10, 2019, as the City Council considered what right-of-way to buy for Marine Drive, reportedly the Public Works Director said that the City will buy whatever right-of-way the Council decides on.

 

But that's not how it turned out. The City Council picked one route and the Public Works Director bought right-of-way at twice the market value in a different location that had a house on it which could have been available as affordable housing stock if it hadn't been torn down.

 

Here's some maps that make more clear the issues at stake here.

 

Below is a screenshot of a Google Maps image, with the Taybin Drive house address shown by the red marker. That address is considerably south of Cameo Drive, which Councilor Kaser's motion said should be the southern edge of the Marine Drive right-of-way acquisition. So why is the Public Works Department buying the Taybin Drive property for a possible future Marine Drive construction?

 

 

And here's a screenshot of part of a Salem River Crossing (Third Bridge) planning document that I found on Google Images. You can see that the plan was for bridge traffic to be funneled along Marine Drive, some of which would run close to and parallel to Wallace Marine Park -- right where the Taybin Drive house was located.