Report: Resolutions and Emergency Bills Passed Monday Night and Council Luncheon Notes

Resolutions passed by the City Council February 9, 2009

2009-031: Approved the plans and specifications for fabrication of the Springfield Wayfinding signs.

At the City Council luncheon today, February 10, City Manager Greg Burris passed out a document, provided by Director of Public Works Marc Thornsberry, to the City Council for the purpose of clarifying the objectives of the Wayfinding Signs. Following is the content of that document:

THE OBJECTIVES OF A WAYFINDING & CROSS MARKETING SYSTEM

> Increase the number of people who visit/use the City of Springfield

> Identify the City of Springfield as a destination from area highways

> By defining its boundaries, announce to visitors their arrival to the City

> Reflect the City's structure and vision

> Make visitors' experiences more memorable

> Further enhance Springfield's public image through distinctive, helpful graphics; to make the area more "user-friendly: and desirable to visit

> Remove visitors; anxieties

> Provide visitors a safer environment

> Improve vehicular, and pedestrian safety by better informing visitors

> Guide visitors into, through and out of Springfield along the most convenient and desired routes promoting safer traffic patterns

> Provide the information people need to comfortably access area businesses, attractions, parks, historic buildings and meeting venues

> From area highways and throuroughfares, identify the primary Springfield destinations as Bass Pro Shops, Battlefield Mall, Jordan Valley Park, and Downtown

> Reduce the number and length auto trips, and the associated pollution, by providing better and timelier information and increasing pedestrian walking ease

> Reduce visitor frustration in Springfield by reducing unnecessary circulation resulting from misdirected travel to destinations and parking

> Make the defined destinations more identifiable by their consistent presentation in the wayfinding system's graphic messageing

> Direct visitors to the most convenient parking

> Where applicable, properly orient visitors as they leave the parking garage or surface lots becoming pedestrians

> Improve the connection between transit users and destinations in the defined areas

> ADA legibility guidelines in the design of the program

Source: City of Springfield

The resolution passed Monday night, however, three members of the City Council voted against the passage of the resolution. Those members were, Councilman Doug Burlison, Councilman Ralph Manley and Councilman Dan Chiles. Mayor Tom Carlson was not present at the meeting.

Manley didn't feel it was a good time to spend money on the approved Capital Improvement Project.

Chiles didn't know what the Wayfinding signs were, "What is the wayfinding?" He asked.

Mr. Chiles was also interested in whether funds were included for maintaining the signage. The answer to his question came from Thornsberry, the signs, 126 in all, will have a warranty of 5 years.

At the luncheon meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Deaver pointed out the Council receives a package with the background on all the bills no later than the Thursday preceeding the Council meeting. He reminded the Council that they could call on the Monday when the meeting was scheduled to ask questions regarding any of the bills brought before the Council, and staff affirmed they would be more than happy to answer any questions any of the Council members might have about any item on the agenda.

Councilman Burlison wondered if GPS systems would make the Wayfinding signs obsolete. He also asked about liability if some business owners complained that their businesses were not one of the businesses chosen to be promoted by the signs.

"It's not, 'Go visit Bass Pro,' it's ' if you're going to Bass Pro, this is how you get there,'" City attorney Dan Wichmer responded.

Later, in the ensuing discussion, Councilman Wylie said, "The Wayfinding tells you where we want you to go."

Councilwoman Collette said while visitors may be coming to Springfield for one reason, "When they see the signs, they say, 'why not go there?'"

It should be noted: the Wayfinding program is also identified as a "Cross Marketing System."

After apologizing for not being as prepared to address the Council as usual because, the background of the bill was unavailable due to the City's fight with a computer virus, Fred Ellison, a General Seat B Council candidate, raised a concern about new projects being started at a time when the public appeared to be indicating a desire that priorities of the City's spending be reevaluated, "I hate to see us start project after project. This is Phase 1 of this project, no one has said what the other phases' costs will be," Ellison pointed out. He was also concerned about the company being awarded the bid, "Valley City Sign is out of Michigan," he said. He wondered about such a large contract being awarded to an outside company.

According to the background provided to the bill, though Zumar Industries, Inc.'s (Zumar) bid was $75,817.45 below the Valley City Sign bid, Zumar could only provide a 2 year warranty and did not comply fully with the sign's fabrication requirements. Valley City Signs met all fabrication requirements, provided a 5 year warranty and was almost $100,000 below the City Engineer's estimated cost.*

City Manager Burris reminded the Council the Wayfinding signs were something the City said would be done with the 1/4 cent Capital Improvement's tax, "This is a part of doing what we say," Burris said at today's luncheon.

There was no further comment added today, as to the future cost of installation of the signs or any future phases of the project.

2009-032: Certified the results of the Tuesday, February 3 election.

City Manager Burris apologized for remarks he had made to the media regarding bringing the pension sales tax issue back to a ballot in June. He said he will not be recommending the tax initiative be brought back to a ballot so quickly as it would not allow enough time to consider public input prior to bringing a new initiative to Council for approval for a future public vote, "We're not sitting back singing woe, what we're doing is planning action," Burris said.

The resolution was unanimously approved by the City Council. Mayor Carlson was absent.

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

Emergency Bills

2009-033: Authorized the Department of Aviation to apply for and accept a grant of money for the purpose of purchasing an emergency vehicle for use at the airport.

The bill was passed unanimously by the City Council. Mayor Carlson was not present at the meeting.

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

*Contractors and their bids for the fabrication of Wayfinding Signs:

> Zumar Industries, Inc. $259,671.00

> Valley City Sign $334,488.45

> Harmon Sign, Inc. $358,820.00

> Architectural Graphics, Inc. $465,287.00

> Poblocki Sign Company, LLC $559,569.80

> Interstate Highway Sign Inc. $563,290.00

> Nordquist Sign Company, Inc. $732,245.00

> Engineer's Estimate: $431,100.00

Source: City of Springfield

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

The Bleeding of the Pension Fund is not Enough?

Sacrificial Slaying of Core Services should be Carefully Weighed

There is one criticism to the suggestion the Springfield City Council deny City manager Burris' recommendation to make the full actuarial recommended contribution of over $13 million in fiscal 2009-10 to the pension plan which should be addressed. The criticism is that those who have criticized the City for not making a full contribution in 2005-2008 are now suggesting the City not make it in the next fiscal year. On the surface, that seems like a fair criticism. It would appear those who suggest the City not make the full contribution in the next fiscal year are taking a hypocritical stance. The difference is, the economic times are not the same today as they were in those previous years when the City failed to make the full contribution and there are other variables to be considered.

The City Council, certainly, should be seeking to contribute every single penny they are able to save in the next budget deliberation cycle to put into the police and firefighter's pension plan. That is a no brainer. They should severly cut the next fiscal budget but, there should be a requirement to exercize some common sense and make those drastic cuts selectively and responsibly.

One of the key questions the City management should be asking and the City Council should be considering in the next budget deliberation cycle is:

Is it going to do the City less damage in the future if the City continues a hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and continues its hold on the police and fire acadamies in order to make the full contribution in the next fiscal year, or would it do less harm to the City should they make as much of a contribution as possible but, not the full actuarial contribution, and not at the expense of continuing the hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and the hold on the academies?

At a Council luncheon in September 2008, a new City manager attended, I believe, his first Council luncheon in his official capacity as City manager. He led the Council in a brainstorming session designed to narrow the field of issues viewed by the City Council as "long term priority issues." You can view the list of long term priorities the Council came up with here.

To my knowledge, the Council and manager have not yet revisited the subject of long term priorities but, what was interesting to me was that Burris presented the Council with the most current Council resolution reaffirming the City Council's six priorities. Those six priorities were: Public Safety; Transportation/Traffic; Quality of Life and Economic Development; Communication with Citizens; Center City Revitalization; and Long-Range Planning/Vision 20/20 for next year.

The resolution (RES8721) (Bill 99-438) was passed in 1999 and, in the background information provided, it was noted the six priorities were not listed in priority order. The background also listed the "Action Step Priorities" for each of the six listed priorities.

If we consider the City's recent Citizen Survey report, in planning for the city's future, 98 percent of the respondents placed, "keeping the crime rate low" as their number one priority; the number two priority of the citizens who responded to the survey, by 93 percent, was ensuring quality public health services are available, and respondents felt the city should give the most emphasis to traffic flow, street and infrastructure maintenance, and the quality of police protection in the next two years.

It appears the citizens of Springfield and, at least, a past City Council recognized the importance and priority positions of street and infrastructure maintenance, traffic flow, and quality police protection. Though the City Council's 1999 resolution pointed out their priorities were not listed in the order of priority, one can't help but notice public safety and transportation/traffic are listed in the number one and two spots. Arguably, health department services address issues of public safety as much as the police and fire departments.

As the City manager makes recommendations for budget cuts in City departments, and as the City Council weighs those recommended budget cuts, consideration should be taken for the priorities of public safety, public health services and street and infrastructure maintence. That is, if the City manager and City Council are weighing what is best for the City rather than, solely, what is best for the police and fire pension plan, and certainly, getting the pension plan to solvency is in the best interest of the City, as well.

It may be, at this particular time in our City's history, that what would be in the best interest of the City, as a whole, would be for the City Council to approve making as much of a contribution to the police and fire pension plan as possible, reopening the police and fire academies, and ending the freeze on hiring in those departments. They might also want to consider cutting, where possible, in the health department while not jeopardizing the well being of the citizens of Springfield, and perhaps, they should consider ceasing new infrastructure projects and focus, instead, on maintaining the streets and infrastructure we currently have.

We are in a recession. Sales tax revenue receipts have not been coming in at the City's predicted rate in the recent past, and are not expected to reach the level expected by City staff for the foreseeable future. These are not the same economic times in which to make a full contribution to the police and fire pension plan as they were in 2005-2008.

It is the duty and obligation of the City manager to have a key focus on making recommendations which best serve the entire City and its residents, and it is the obligation of the City Council to implement policies and base their approval of fiscal budgets on criteria which will best serve the populace of the entire City. State law does not require the full contribution be made in the next four years.

The 1 percent sales tax to fund the police and fire pension plan was not approved Tuesday. Citizens spoke. There was a larger turnout at the polls than, historically, turn out for a February election. Burris has complained not enough people got out to vote. There have been no complaints on the part of the City, in the past, when there was a low voter turnout which resulted in the passage of a sales tax, why should there be complaint over low voter turnout when a tax is defeated? The City needs to simply accept the voice of the people and focus on the next fiscal budget at this time.

If the City chooses to place this tax before the voters again in June, they will be caught up in budget deliberations and a campaign to pass a 1-cent sales tax at the same time. To set themselves up to be so distracted, due to promoting a sales tax, that they cannot give adequate and proper consideration to the next fiscal budget does not seem wise.

So, in response to the criticizer of the "critics" (whoever they might be) who disagreed with past City Council's failure to make the full actuarial pension contribution in the past but, who believe the City should carefully weigh what is the best action for the City, as a whole, rather than the pension system, alone, in 2009:

We are not living in the past and today, we are in an economic recession. While making the full contribution would have been the best action from 2005-2008, today, there are other considerations. It might not be the best action for the City to make the full actuarial recommended contribution in 2009, and it is, certainly, worth careful consideration.

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

An Unexplored City "What-If-Scenario"

The complicated police fire pension issue, with its attached 1-cent sales tax solution, is almost entirely based upon projected scenarios which are based almost entirely on projected assumptions, for instance:

What if the pension sales tax passes?

a. The City of Springfield projects they'll get a return in sales tax revenue for the pension fund of $40 million annually, minus the state's 1 percent handling fee, again, projected at $400,000 if based on the projected $40 million annual revenue they assume the state will collect on behalf of the City under the sales tax. (Just try to keep up ;)

b. The City of Springfield projects they will be able to restore all past cuts to City services and not be "forced" to make drastic cuts to City services in the next fiscal budget. In other words, the City projects everything will be right with the world if the voters approve the sales tax initiative and they won't have to cut services to the public or do the hard work of trying to find cuts in the City government to make a full recommended actuarial contribution in the next fiscal year, a full recommended actuarial contribution which, in fact, they are not required by law to make in the first place (but, we've discussed that in the past, here, no sense rehashing it again).

What if the pension sales tax doesn't pass?

a. The City Manager is, more or less, promising Joe and Josephine Q. Public that they'll cut your services, even though not legislatively required to do so. If you think the public swimming pools being closed a couple of extra days last summer was bad, wait till they start removing the PAR and COP officers from your neighborhood. Chances are, you wouldn't allow your children to walk to the public swimming pool even if they were open 24 hours a day after your neighborhood's police presence further plummets.

b. The City projects the police and fire pension system will languish and the City will never, ever be able to catch up because, according to the City and it's Council, the only way to really address it is by taxing the public.

Now, let's look at the case of a City Councilwoman's quote which was recently published in the daily paper:

"Politically, it wouldn't make sense for those employees to continue to contribute when the city doesn't have to (contribute)."

Rushefsky's comment was made when and if, as I suspect, during the course of an October 21 luncheon meeting, discussions of a number of "what-if" scenarios arose as a result of a presentation offered by two different Milliman actuaries. (See CFP, November 19 issue, page 2).

What I wanted to point out was, during the course of that October 21 Council luncheon meeting, there were several discussions which took place. I failed to write about one projected scenario in the November 19 issue of the Community Free Press (because, it wasn't my focus at the time) and to my knowledge, Wes Johnson of the News-Leader never wrote about it either.

As earlier established, just about everything the City is discussing is in terms of "ifs" or "if nots" in regards to the pension sales tax's passage or failure. Since, at last night's Council meeting, the City Council was discussing the potential of moving new hires and possibly Tier 2 police and fire employees into the LAGERS system, should the pension sales tax be approved February 3, the October 21 luncheon meeting becomes more relevant. The Rushefsky quote was a part of a broader discussion. I think we shouldn't leave the Rushefsky quote flopping like a fish on the table of condemnation without the water of context.

Milliman actuaries were projecting and predicting a surplus in the pension system at certain points in the projected future, if the sales tax initiative passed.

Rushefsky's comment came about during a discussion of whether the City could cease contributing to the pension system after it reached surplus funding. Rushefsky, I felt, made a good point. If the surplus in the fund was so large and was growing larger and larger as the Tier 1 retirees decreased in number, leaving only some Tier 2 employees, it would seem as moot for the police and fire employees to continue to throw their pennies into the fund as it would for the City to continue to contribute. "Politically," as Rushefsky phrased it, it would seem unwise to release the City from their responsibility while continuing to demand the pension beneficiaries be bound to a similarly, unnecessary responsibility.

The discussions didn't end there however, and bearing in mind this is another one of those projected, assumed, what-if/what-if-not-scenarios everyone has been hanging their hats upon in the early days of a new City Manager's reign, here is that other scenario that never found voice outside that room that day and which I don't believe any reporter has exposed:

Someone asked, what would become of the money left in the old pension system fund after the last Tier 1 retiree has died and if new hires were put in LAGERS and the Tier 2 employees had elected to move into LAGERS?

City attorney Dan Wichmer said it could be written up somehow that the City would become the inheriter of the system's left over funds when it had served it's purpose and the last beneficiary of the plan was gone.

In this what-if-scenario, based on similar projections and assumptions the City cites when they ask the public to weigh their pension sales tax decision (or actuarial assumptions and projections delivered to the City Council October 21, 2008 ):

If the citizens of Springfield pass this 1-cent sales tax on February 3 and if it reaches a level of funding between 90 and 100 percent (causing the projected future surplus in the fund), and if new hires and Tier 2 police and fire employees agree to move to the LAGERS retirement system, when the last Tier 1 police or fire retiree dies, the City could stand to inherit the remains of a pension system fund with projected future assets worth an assumed value of between $8.8 and about $500 million.*

Cha-ching!!! < Click me

*And while we're what-iffin, the projected assumed value would be effected by whether the City and employees continued to contribute into the fund after it reached a surplus level.

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