The following questions (in bold) were asked by the newspaper of each city council candidate. For those who don't get the paper, I thought I would post my answers here.
Interestingly, Mr. Filsinger did not participate in the questionare. Once again, he seems unable or unwilling to answer to the voters.
Hope to see all of you at the forum tomorrow.
1 )Recently, at the insistence of two Sidney residents, the Sidney City Council reviewed its decision to not move forward with the construction of sidewalk bulb-outs in Sidney's Historic Downtown District. As a result, an approved construction bid included the construction of 6-foot bulb-outs. Were you or are you in favor of bulb-out construction, and why or why not?
I am in favor of the bulb-out curbs because of the safety measures they provide. Many people don’t realize the far right-hand lane in the downtown district is a parking lane only, not a turning lane. It is technically illegal to pull into the far right lane to turn right. (It is legal to turn right on red, but only from the same lane you would use to go forward.) Once the bulb-out curbs are installed, people will be blocked from using the parking lane as a turning lane by the bulb-outs. The result is that pedestrians have a shorter distance from curb to curb when crossing the street, and have a better vantage point to see oncoming traffic. The added bonus of adding a bit of landscaping to beautify the corners makes them appealing as well.
I think the larger problem the bulb-out issue exposed was that while the council had approved the plans for the project several times, some members were surprised when the first bulb-outs were installed. The city had held three public hearings while formulating the plans, had a multitude of public meetings, and encouraged input from the public for more than a year. The plans – approved by council after a detailed presentation at a council meeting – were on display at city hall for several months, and yet, when the first bulb-outs went in the opposition was raised and the council suddenly wanted to revisit those plans. It would appear that the council members who objected so late in the game had either not paid attention to the plans, or lacked the vision to see the plans carried out.
In addition, the engineer for the project recommended the bulb-outs be at least 8-foot to provide highly effective safety measures, and said he wouldn’t recommend going smaller. After listening to his expert opinion, the council approved the smaller size anyway.
I find it very disappointing that all the public input and the expert opinion of the engineer was disregarded, resulting in council compromising not only the effectiveness of the bulb-outs, but also greatly decreasing the landscaping options because of the smaller size.
2 ) A hot button topic at the beginning of the year involved the local form of government, which is classified as city council/manager. Discussion on the subject involved a review of this type and other types of government for Sidney. What is your stance on the current form of government and why?
The hot button topic was that three of our council members – Mr. Filsinger, Mr. Van Vleet, and Mayor Weiderspon – expressed interest in separating the position of city manager from the economic development director position. During the Jan. 26 meeting, I asked Councilman Filsinger if he supported cutting the city manager position, and he said he was interested in making expenditure cuts, but did not say he was interested in changing the form of government here.
I think the anonymous newsletters circulated around town fueled a lot of speculation as to the motivations of our council members in attempting to separate the positions. In the long run, there was strong public support for the city manager serving the dual role and the effort was dropped.
Additionally, if a change were to be made from our form of government it could only be done after a vote by the people. Council does not have the authority to do so.
3 ) Sidney has made it a habit to seek out federal and state funding to match its local investment in construction, street and other projects. This is done by seeking out grants and low-interest loans, some of which may have “ strings attached,” meaning certain requirements must be met in order to receive funding. What is your view of this practice, and why are you for or against federal and state supplemental funds?
Sidney is in the unique position of having high property values and a property tax level lower than the legal limit. The Nebraska state aid program (funded by our taxes) was built upon the premise of providing property tax relief, and has had significant impact in doing so statewide. However, because our property tax levy is no where close to the legal limit, Sidney does not qualify for this aid. The state takes the position that if we needed additional funds to complete projects, we could simply raise the levy.
That means the only way our community has to recoup any of the state and federal taxes we pay through sales taxes and income taxes is to apply for the grants and zero or low interest loans.
Prime examples would be the waste water treatment plant and the water project that could not have been completed without such grants unless the rate payers of Sidney would have footed the bill - to the tune of more than $6 million. We had no choice, we were required by law to provide the services.
I don’t believe that people in Sidney want to pay property tax, sales tax, income tax and all sorts of miscellaneous fees and taxes and have nothing to show for it.
We may not always like the way the funds are administered, but should work to change the rules, not eliminate the funding.
In addition, I think the opposition to using such funds comes from the perception that projects are chosen because grant or loan money is available, as opposed to the project being chosen on the merits. I think those perceptions are largely false, but promoting honest, open discussions during planning meetings and council meetings with lots of community input could eliminate such concerns.
4 ) What other issues do you feel should be a priority for the council, and what issues would become a priority for you if elected?
At one of the recent budget workshops, I watched as council listened to presentations by city department heads. There was very little discussion about what was presented, and they seemed satisfied with the explanations as to the requests. The problem came after the workshop, when the meeting had been adjourned. I watched as three council members started discussing the numbers. Before long they were asking questions of a few public officials that were still in council chambers.
While it might seem that the conversation was innocent, in reality they were improperly conducting the business of the workshop and the conversation should not have taken place.
I have watched as council members have passed notes to each other during meetings instead of participating in the conversation. That is not transparency.
This type of behavior has fueled rumors about personal agendas and preferential treatment, and the level of trust in the council has been eroded.
If elected to council, my first priority will be to promote open discussions during the meetings and to hold everyone to the same standards.
All of us as candidates want to see a resolution of the sales tax refund issue, to provide good streets and infrastructure, to promote a healthy business climate and still be able to fund the amenities that make Sidney a thriving community. I hope to make the process one the people have confidence in as well.
