There's a Reason the Public Looks to the Media for Information

City Government Web Site's Information can be Difficult to Navigate

You can trace my steps here, then consider the results of the last capital improvements sales tax to pass (that's what I really wanted readers to know).

I recently volleyed a few emails back and forth with Springfield's Public Information Office (PIO) Director regarding previous election results of the Capital Improvements Program.

If you want to retrace my steps, you can find the CIP page I was perusing by looking under "e" for "election issues" on the City's site map (available at the City's Web site), then clicking on Capital Improvements (conveniently linked above for you). Here's what it looks like under "Election issues" at the City's site map:

Election issues: Upcoming Issue, Latest Results and status of Capital Improvements, 1/8¢ Sales Tax Status

By clicking on the 1/8-cent Tax Status link available at the election issues section of the Capital Improvements Program Web page (at the time of this posting), one can (could?) find the following information as to the status of the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax:

"On August 5, 2008, Springfield voters once again approved renewal of an 1/8¢ sales tax, with no tax increase, for another round of high-priority transportation projects in Springfield. The tax has a four-year sunset.

Results:
Yes - 14,727 (80.95%) No - 3,465 (19.05%)

In 1996, 2000 and 2004, Springfield voters approved a one-eighth of one percent sales tax for transportation that has allowed the City to partner with the Missouri Department of Transportation to accelerate improvements by extending MoDOT’s cost-sharing program to additional high-priority projects in the Springfield metro area."

Apparently, based on information which was later shared by the PIO Director, it is just a coincidence that I could find such information under the "previous election" link at the Eighth-cent Transportation Tax page, because it was the last "previous election," prior to the February 3, 2009 election, and the Web site had not yet been updated to reflect the results of the February 3, election.

I didn't realize it was just a quinkydink when I began trying to find information about the last election in which voters approved the Capital Improvement Program's 1/4-cent sales tax. I was thinking: "It stands to reason that the same sort of election information should be available pertaining to the Capital Improvement Program's 1/4-cent Sales Tax as is available about the 1/8-cent transportation sales tax." However, such election results weren't available at the Capital Improvements Program Web page, and a click on the "previous election" link at the Capital Improvements Program Web page garnered this reply:

"The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."

Upon sending a query to the PIO Director, inquiring as to when the previous CIP election information would be available at the Web site, she recommended I visit the County's Web site, as their election information is more comprehensive than the City's election information but, without the date of the CIP tax renewal, the County's Web site was no help. My original question was deflected, it went unanswered.

Now, I am and was mindful that the City's computer systems were recently attacked by a computer virus and I know they were required to replace some of the information they had previously had available to the public on the internet. I also don't expect them to jump through hoops every time an issue is brought to their attention, it was for that reason I simply asked when the information might be restored so that it would be accessible to the public once again.

Finally, after my third attempt to find out when the election result information on the CIP Web page was going to be provided or replaced, the PIO Director told me that the CIP election information was, "not on the Web anymore. It has since been replaced by the 1/8-cent from last August, which will be replaced in the "previous election" section soon by the Feb. 3 election."

Apparently, I did not have a clear understanding about the purpose of the previous election link on the CIP Web page. I would have assumed it would pertain to the previous election that had included the CIP sales tax.

One might ask, why place the CIP and the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Status links under "election issues" if their specific, previous election results are not going to be made available to the public, wouldn't the generic "Upcoming Issue, and Latest Results" links serve the purpose of giving the previous election results? I'm befuddled and confused about the purpose of providing links to those items under "election issues" because, certain elections have, or will have, no bearing at all on those specific sales tax issues.

In the February 3, 2009, election, neither of those tax initiatives were even on the ballot. It makes me think (because I have a brain) that, perhaps, the original intent of those links was to inform the voters of the results of the last elections which specifically pertained to those tax initiatives. I decided not to ask, I've troubled the PIO Director enough and there were other issues upon which I wanted to move.

Am I being picky? It isn't a particular big deal, except that, without being able to find the date of the last election to mark voter approval of the Capital Improvement Sales Tax through the City's informational pages, the County's Web site could offer me nothing hence, the County's touted, more "comprehensive election results summaries" meant nothing to me. You see, in most cases, tax initiatives the City of Springfield place on the ballot are identified by the County Election Office as, "City of Springfield Question 1." How is the public to know whether "question 1" was a vote on the CIP sales tax, a vote on the transportation sales tax or a vote on, oh, I don't know, a pension fund sales tax?

It is only important because it highlights either the accessibility or the inaccessibility of public information to the taxpayers of Springfield and Greene County. These steps, and the continuing steps I had to take to access that information, mark the steps a member of the public might also have to trace in order to find out information about the government, information about their own tax dollars.

The only other course would be to ask someone at the City. Perhaps you could ask your City Council representative to find out for you, if he/she doesn't know off the top of his/her head. You could ask the PIO Director. You could call the City Clerk's Office.

In this case, all I needed was the date of the last passage of the CIP sales tax. I tried my best to find it online, myself, for a reason. Sometimes, in the past, when I have asked certain questions, rather than an answer, I've been told that the information is available online, as though I shouldn't have asked until I did a thorough search of the City's Web site first. Well, that seemed fair enough, so that's what I try to do. I look for the information at the City's Web site first and if, after I have searched, I cannot find it, I start asking questions. Honestly, I really do try to be as considerate as possible when doing research.

Anyway, finally, after finding out, through the PIO Director, there were no plans to provide that information online for the public, I just asked the PIO Director to tell me the date of the last election in which voters approved the CIP sales tax. Non-readers of this blog who would like that information are on their own.

As a result of my efforts, I can offer the following information to my readers:


> The Capital Improvement Program's 1/4-cent sales tax was last approved by voters in February 2007.


> Total voter turn out for that election was 6.56 percent.


> Of the 104,041 registered voters in Greene County, at that time, the total number of registered voters who cast a ballot that day was 6,826.


> The County identified the CIP tax initiative on the ballot as, "CITY OF SPRINGFIELD QUESTION 1."


> The 3,941 registered voters who voted "yes" to the 1/4-cent CIP sales tax in the last election represented 72.55 percent of the 6.52 percent of registered voters who turned out that day.


> The 1,087 registered voters who voted "no" to the 1/4 CIP sales tax in the last election represented 27.45 percent of the 6.52 percent of registered voters who turned out for that election.


> Of the 6,826 registered voters who cast a ballot that February day in 2007, 5,028 cast a vote either for or against the CIP 1/4-cent sales tax, deciding the issue for the rest of the taxpayers in the City of Springfield.


> By a margin of 2,854 votes, the 1/4-cent Capital Improvement Program sales tax was passed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Community Free Press Voter Guide Available

The new issue of the "Community Free Press" came online last night and I have it on good authority that copies will be at all the news stands by the end of the day.

This issue is a voter guide issue, meaning that some people, ahem, had to fight to get what they got into the paper this go around. ;)

I can only heap praise on the political director of the paper, Brian Brown. What an excellent job of getting information out to the people about candidates and issues!

Brown wrote (page 8):

"This voter’s guide is designed to be a resource for voters. We’ve compiled basic information about all the candidates here, and we have responses to our candidate questionnaire on our Web site, www.cfpmidweek.com. The responses are unedited, and we believe, give voters a central location to learn about the local and state politicians who responded.

In the six issues since the August 5 primary, we’ve covered nearly all of the contested races in Greene County. Those stories not covered in this issue can be found in our “issues archives” under the “More…” heading on our site."

Regarding City Council coverage, CFP looked at the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, who and how priorities were set for its usage within the Capital Improvement Program; provided a city finance update and; internal auditor update, pages 1 and 4 respectively.

On page 6:

"The Community Free Press contacted the heads of the Greene County Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties and offered them a chance to say why you should vote for their party."

Kara Hartfield took a look at how Halloween tradition has transformed over the years, find that article on page 1.

The letters' section was very interesting in this issue, relegated almost entirely to endorsement letters and letters from candidates, I found it interesting reading.

Bob Mace is "Opinion-8ed," as usual, and you can read about the Pizza House's relocation to Commercial Street on page 20:

"After a highly publicized controversy over being evicted, a Springfield institution will triumphantly return on Halloween.

Pizza House will re-open at its new location, 312 E. Commercial St., on October 31. Owner/manager Stacey Schneider said she is happy her business will become part of the Commercial Street community...."

I can't wait to pick up the print edition and curl up in a comfy chair.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update on 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Issue

I'm a believer in full disclosure (as I learn, so will you).

Yesterday, Mike Brothers, of the City, sent me an email after reading my entry on the 1/8-cent transportation tax (you can read that entry directly below this one).

I chose not to update it until I had a few more facts, but, what Mr. Brothers wanted me to know is that when a 1/8-cent transportation sales tax project is proposed as a cost share it does come before the City Council. I had questions about how it came before Council. I asked where it was placed on the agenda, whether it was listed as a one reading, first reading or consent agenda item, and I asked Brothers if he would mind providing me with an example.

The reason I asked, and the reason I felt it was important to know how it came up, is because there isn't as much understanding about how the public can address a "consent agenda" bill as there are first reading bills or even resolutions or emergency bills.

A consent agenda bill must be requested removed from the consent agenda by either a member of the public or the Council and, in my opinion, they often fly under the radar screen and are treated as just simple, "taking care of business" matters which don't warrant much attention or questioning. That's why I was interested.

Brothers provided me with an example and I'll get to that in a minute.

In his original email to me, Mike wrote:

"...anything involving the 1/8 cent goes to Council. Any kind of cost share with MoDOT or private developers or anyone else would go to Council for approval. Smaller projects on down to sidewalks would still have to be bid out to developers and that would require Council approval, too. So there are no staff decisions (if that's what you meant by administrative) as to how to allocate the money."

Facts are facts and as such, yes, it is important to note them, but my further questions as to how they are presented on the Council agenda also has bearing, in my mind, and it should be noted that Council members do not generally write the bills that come before them in Council chambers, and as a new Councilman by the name of Doug Burlison found out at, I believe, his second Council meeting, even the Council members who are listed as sponsors of any particular agenda item have not necessarily played a part in the creation of that bill or even necessarily support it. A Council member's name MUST be listed as sponsoring a bill on the agenda and so Council members' names are often listed as sponsors without their knowledge of a bill. After Burlison found that out, he specifically requested he not be listed as a sponsor of a bill without his approval (a little digression I thought readers might be interested in).

Also, though Council may review and approve the bills related to the transportation tax as they come up, Council, as the representatives of the voters, will generally support what the voters have approved, as they should. So, if and when the voters approve administrative (or staff) recommendations "to advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements," the Council will, likely, feel bound to honor whatever the administration (or staff) recommends will advance those goals. The Council will consider the people to have spoken and that will be that.

How many times have we heard in recent months that because the voters approved projects for the 1/4-cent park sales tax or had approved a CIP project that they feel they must follow through on what the voters wanted. Therefore, when (and if) the voters approve the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, the Council will determine that voters understood what they were voting for and will honor the voters wishes.

How this translates, in my view, is that this vote on this tax is crucial. Voters will determine whether they approve of projects, both listed and unlisted, that the City deems will serve "to advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements," and Council will feel bound to follow through on the wishes of the voters.

In my previous CFP Council Notes column, re-posted in the entry below, I pointed out that:

"This year’s ballot language does not specify parking, but includes “other shared funding projects with county, state, federal, and developers to advance high-priority transportation projects,” which are identified in the bill as, “related to economic development and quality of life enhancements.”

If you have not read beyond the ballot language, you should: ORD25392.

Now, as for the example Mike Brothers sent me. As suspected, it was a resolution on the consent agenda. It was listed as a one reading bill, meaning, unless removed from the consent agenda by a member of the public or the Council, it would not be read individually at all and would be voted on at that meeting as a part of the consent agenda.

The Mayor (Gannaway at the time), likely, as you will know if you have attended many City Council meetings, would have offered members of the public and the Council the opportunity to remove it (in the form of "any consent agenda items") from the consent agenda, otherwise, it would have sailed through as a bulk consent agenda item and been voted on, not individually, but as a part of the consent agenda as a whole. Which, it appears, is exactly what happened in the case of the example Brothers sent me. He sent a link to Bill 99-049, Ordinance No. 8620. You may read it yourself, RES8620 .

From the minutes of that meeting, we find:

"The following bills appeared on the agenda under Consent Agenda – One Reading Bills.

Glenstone & Battlefield

Sponsor: Rhodes. Council Bill 99-49. A resolution approving the plans, specifications and the bid of Hartman and Company for adding dual left turn lanes to the Glenstone and Battlefield intersection.

Council Bill 99-49. Resolution No. 8620, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Griggs, Vanaman, Wright, Gibson, Carlson, Hacker, Chancellor, Rhodes, Gannaway. Nays: None. Absent: None."

Had it been a first reading bill on the consent agenda it would have appeared on the agenda twice, at the next meeting as a "second reading" consent agenda bill. Since it was a one reading bill it would have appeared on the agenda at the February 1, 1999 meeting and been voted on that night, along with every other item on the consent agenda, as a whole, and never appear again.

So, technically, the Council has an opportunity to vote and approve these projects as they come up, then later to approve the bids, and the public can hold them accountable for their choices and it is all worth noting.

Certainly, the voters can hold the Council accountable if they feel the use of the tax isn't in keeping with what the voters had in mind, but, in my opinion, when voters approve such broad, open-ended language, it is all very subjective as to whether this is a use the voters would have approved without being specifically singled out for separate vote. This measure, as written, approves those broad, open-ended uses before they come up, voters have given their option of approving individual uses away at the outset by voting to support the measure and passing it. It's my opinion, they have, at that point, given away the option of holding the Council accountable because they've already authorized City uses that the City deems will, "advance other high-priority transportation improvements related to economic development and quality of life enhancements."

In the case Brothers provided, it was listed on the one reading consent agenda, not removed from it and then approved as a part of the consent agenda as a whole. There was no discussion in this case. The example Brothers provided happened to have been an item listed in the ballot language for uses of the tax. Short of studying every set of meeting minutes it would be difficult and very time consuming to try to track down particular cases and, as a result, I have gone with using the example he provided.

Further note: I don't intentionally omit information. In this blog format I relay information as it becomes available to me and if something later becomes available to me that has bearing on something I have previously written, I do make an effort to update it with the further information.

While blogging is a different format than writing a column in the newspaper there isn't much difference in some regards. Reporters write about facts as they become available to them. I have added these facts as they became available and supplied some opinion to go along with it. As always, the reader will have to determine what they will choose to do with the information available to them at the time they make a decision about whether they support this tax or not. My primary concern has been that voters have as clear an understanding about what they are voting to support, if they vote in support of this tax, as possible. I hope some of the information I've provided has been helpful.

Vote!

Whether you vote for or against the transportation sales tax, you owe it to yourself and the other members of your community to cast your vote. Do it.

1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Renewal

It's the voters' decision

As a service to readers here, I posted the column I wrote for the Community Free Press on the 1/8-cent transportation sales tax after the City Council voted to bring the issue back before the voters on May 5, 2008. The ballot question will appear before voters on the August 5, ballot:

"Shall the City of Springfield, Missouri, continue a sales tax of one-eighth of one percent for transportation purposes to fund high priority transportation improvements which include the following: Upgrading US Route 65 to a six lane facility from Battlefield Road to Chestnut Expressway; interchange improvements at James River Freeway (JRF) and National Avenue, JRF and Campbell Avenue (Phase I) and I-44 and Kansas Expressway; Intermodal Connectivity investments to enhance mobility of alternative modes of transportation (Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit); intersection improvement at Kearney Street and National Avenue; Turn Lane Safety and Capacity Projects; Bridge and Pavement Preservation Projects; Intelligent Transportation System Projects; and other shared funding projects with County, State, Federal, and Developers to advance high-priority transportation projects with County, State, Federal, and Developers to advance high-priority transportation projects; and including the repayment of bonds which may be used to pay for the improvements, with the tax to sunset in four years?

As a further service to readers, I am going to re-post my CFP column, the correction that followed the column in the Community Free Press' next issue (the issue of June 4) and offer some personal commentary following it:

1/8-Cent Transportation Sales Tax

City Council passed Council Bill 2008-116 on May 5. The purpose of the special ordinance was to allow voters to decide whether to continue the 1/8-cent transportation sales tax 4 more years, from 2009-2012.

The current tax is set to elapse in August, 2009. Councilman Gary Deaver was interested in the process of choosing the projects funded by the transportation tax.

“We work in partnership with MoDOT, Greene County, and the city and really look at where we can get the most value for the transportation dollars that we have,” Director of Public Works Marc Thornsberry answered.

Even though some believe there is subjective language in the ballot, voters have approved the transportation tax three times, beginning in 1996.

The language people have questioned includes unidentified “high priority transportation improvements,” and “other shared funding projects.

”Parking improvements for economic development priorities showed up on the 2000 ballot and street and parking were included as high priority transportation investments in 2004.

This year’s ballot language does not specify parking, but includes “other shared funding projects with county, state, federal, and developers to advance high-priority transportation projects,” which are identified in the bill as, “related to economic development and quality of life enhancements.”

Springfield’s Director of Public Information, Louise Whall, offered insight regarding the general language of the bill and ballot.

“We can’t predict with certainty whether any new opportunities or challenges will present themselves over the four-year period, i.e., a developer proposes a major retail center that needs additional infrastructure and asks for public-private cost-share or MoDOT‘s schedule changes and a project develops that could be a cost-share,” she said.

The transportation tax was used, in part, to fund the College Station and Heer’s Car Parks. According to Whall,the combined amount used from the transportation tax to build the parking garages was $2,836,950.

Community Free Press correction:

"The city budget story (it was actually my CouncilNotes column) in the May 21 issue stated that Springfield's 1/8-cent tax would elapse in August. According to Louise Whall, director of public information for Springfield, "If voters renew it, the new 1/8-cent would start on April 1, 2009. If it is not renewed, it would expire on March 31, 2009. And it remains 1/8 cent during that whole period, so there's no double taxation in the overlap. The ballot issues are put on the ballot well before the effective date to allow the time for the state certification of the results."

I had written that the tax would elapse in August, 2009. That was incorrect and so it was corrected.

I also received the further information about the tax that "the City used $645,000 of 1/8-cent money toward design costs as a cost-share with MoDOT, but no 1/8-cent money for construction," on 266, or Airport Blvd., from Public Information Director Louise Whall.

The use of the tax for the parking garages and Airport Blvd., were approved as uses under the broad (and some say, subjective) language of the previous bills for earlier passage of the tax.

Now, for my personal comments, which, it should be noted are my comments and not affiliated in any way with CFP's stance on the issue, which I do not know and have not discussed with anyone there beyond relaying my reasons for feeling it was important to note the broad, and in my opinion (and others), subjective language of the accompanying documents to the bill. That reason was that voters should have a more encompassing understanding of what they would be supporting if they vote in favor of renewing the tax.

Beyond the projects listed on the ballot as "included" on the list of projects the city plans to undertake, if the tax is renewed, voters are also voting to support administrative opinion regarding what are priority projects for Springfield, and, it should be noted the administrative staff would, likely, tell voters they based those previous decisions, in turn, on past, citizen input.

Previous decisions have included the administrative decision to use $2,836,950 to build parking garages and $645,000 toward design costs for Airport Blvd., as a cost share with MoDOT.

I don't have a personal problem with voters approving such uses of the 1/8-cent transportation sales tax revenue, so long as they understand, completely, the possible uses and how those uses are determined as priority projects for the voters.

Voters will have to weigh whether the projects they want to see implemented are being fairly determined, administratively, by city staff and whether the projects included in the ballot are important enough to outweigh any misgivings one might have about giving city staff license to administratively determine priority cost share projects with private developers and other government entities who are also "leveraging" tax payers' dollars to pay the costs of those projects.

Whatever voters decide, it's certain, they'll pay for it.

More on 1/8-cent Transportation Tax

Since I had posted about the 1/8-cent transportation tax here, here and here, I wanted to follow up by posting the section of my Council column in Community Free Press - Midweek that covers that issue:

1/8-Cent Transportation Sales Tax

City Council passed Council Bill 2008-116 on May 5. The purpose of the special ordinance was to allow voters to decide whether to continue the 1/8-cent transportation sales tax 4 more years, from 2009-2012.

The current tax is set to elapse in August, 2009. Councilman Gary Deaver was interested in the process of choosing the projects funded by the transportation tax.

“We work in partnership with MoDOT, Greene County, and the city and really look at where we can get the most value for the transportation dollars that we have,” Director of Public Works Marc Thornsberry answered.

Even though some believe there is subjective language in the ballot, voters have approved the transportation tax three times, beginning in 1996.

The language people have questioned includes unidentified “high priority transportation improvements,” and “other shared funding projects.”

Parking improvements for economic development priorities showed up on the 2000 ballot and street and parking were included as high priority transportation investments in 2004.

This year’s ballot language does not specify parking, but includes “other shared funding projects with county, state, federal, and developers to advance high-priority transportation projects,” which are identified in the bill as, “related to economic development and quality of life enhancements.”

Springfield’s Director of Public Information, Louise Whall, offered insight regarding the general language of the bill and ballot.

“We can’t predict with certainty whether any new opportunities or challenges will present themselves over the four-year period, i.e., a developer proposes a major retail center that needs additional infrastructure and asks for public-private cost-share or MoDOT‘s schedule changes and a project develops that could be a cost-share,” she said.

The transportation tax was used, in part, to fund the College Station and Heer’s Car Parks. According to Whall,the combined amount used from the transportation tax to build the parking garages was $2,836,950.

...read more...

Confusion by design???

Sometimes I wonder

Edit: The parks projects were not a part of the Transportation Tax Funding. That was a different tax. I still think it was confusing to list it on the informational page for transportation funding. Ms. Whall has provided me with a link to a page that doesn't include it but that doesn't change the fact that it was included on the page I viewed, originally. I am trying to get some additional information that I will post regarding the general nature of what the transportation tax can be used for before adding any more. I'll have a separate post on that soon. - J.

I may have some clarification coming for this post, relating to Council Bill 2008-116. First, I will have to make sure I understand what the City's Information Director is telling me before I can clarify it for the readers of this blog. I have sent off an email with questions for clarification. As soon as I hear back and have a better understanding I will share it here.

There seems to be some confusion on my part. I expected when I entered transportation tax into the city's search bar and came up with a page titled 1/8 cent transportation tax that the informational page headed that way would pertain to the 1/8 cent transportation tax.

Apparently, there is information about other tax revenue that may or may not be related to the transportation tax on the transportation tax informational page.

Rather confusin' don't you think?

~ Jackie