It’s all a matter of timing…

Following our last RCM, I sent the following questions to our City Manager in response to the Christmas In July presentation.

Hi Michael,

I have a series of questions on your draft plan. Sorry for the length, but there's a lot. Perhaps we could schedule a Zoom to go through them?

TIA,

---JC


BROAD:

1. First: Several of these are replacing revenue already budgeted, where will that 'saved' money go? IOW: you already budgeted for Body Cameras. Where does that $100k savings go in 2021? Same question re. Metro and other items. Does this open up opportunities for other programs?

2. Which of these programs -must- be decided on immediately in order for you to prepare your Budget? Can some items be deferred?


SPECIFIC LINE ITEMS:

1. POLICE

a. You have Body Cameras budgeted at $250k. But our agreement with Watchguard was for $190k. Why the difference?

b. 4 new officers. Does this add to our enforcement capacity at any point during the 3 years or is it simply to cover for officers on 'light duty'?

c. When are the light duty officers expected to return to full duty?

d. After 2024, given your forecasting, should we plan on needing additional or (new) revenue sources to be able to afford to maintain these new hires?


2. MENTAL HEALTH

a. My understanding is that the ride-along has not yet been implemented. When does that go live?

b. Do you have any program details? 

    I. How many calls are anticipated

    II. How many counselors will be assigned to this?

    III. Will there be a mechanism for the public (or an officer) to call for a counselor to respond as opposed to -both- an officer and a counselor?


3. GRO

a. Why was $100k chosen?

b. What, if any changes are planned for the administration of the program?


4. METRO

a. Is the cost expected to continue to be $125k in subsequent years beyond 2024?


5. TENANT EVICTIONS

a. Which non-profit(s) are you considering?

b. Can you give me specifics on what this help would look like?

    I. Rent relief?

    II. Relocation costs?

    III. Utilities?

    IV. Other?


6. EMERGENCY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

a. Can you give me specifics on what this help would look like? I'm having trouble visualising what this looks like.

    I. Are we talking existing housing?

    II. New construction?

    III. Where?


7. FOOD TRUCKS

a. Can you give me specifics on what this money would be used for?

b. How is this 'Revenue Loss'?


8. MARINA INFRASTRUCTURE - Can you give me a break down of how you foresee allocating this money. Specifically:

a. What percentage would be used for dock replacement?

b. What percentage for land side development?

c. What (if/any) percentage for bulkhead?


9. SR3

a. Why is this considered Revenue Loss? -Their- revenue loss or ours?

b. Exactly what is that $100k for? Is it a grant? If so, did they make a specific request? If so, I'd like to see it.


10. BUDGET PUBLISHING SOFTWARE

a. What is the specific package being proposed? Can you provide a link to product info?

I also sent an email saying that this spending discussion be postponed–at least until all CMs had had their questions answered. And I know that other CMs felt the same way. The response I received from the administration was that the City Manager was moving the discussion to the September 16th meeting. But this is one of those ‘in the weeds’ things that matters. Here is the administration’s response:

Mayor and City Council,
 
As City Council considers the ARPA funds please take the following into account:
The federal process (Congress) to fund the ARPA was relatively lengthy.  As a result, the federal circulars from the Treasury Department were also somewhat delayed.  These identified the criteria for use of the funds.  At the same time, based on the size of our City’s population, our ARPA funds are administered by the State of Washington, which created another step.
Our Finance Director did a great job justifying both lost revenue and other aspects of these funds to assure Des Moines received our maximum allocation – which our City did.  Approximately $4.5 million this year (these funds are in our bank account) and we anticipate receipt of an additional $4.5 million next year (2022).
The ARPA funds need to be approved as part of the 2022 City Budget.  In order to facilitate this process we made recommendations to the City Council on potential uses of the ARPA funds.  We also set aside time for City Councilmembers to make any suggestions for the use of the funds.  The City Council Budget Retreat will be held on August 5, 2021 so we wanted to be able to include a discussion of the use of the ARPA funds at the Budget Retreat.  That is why the time frame was relatively short.
However, if City Council wants to extend the deadline, we are certainly open to that and will utilize whatever timeline City Council desires, subject only to the State requirement that the City Manager present a recommended budget for 2022 to City Council by early October, 2021.
Therefore, we are recommending an extension of the ARPA review until September 16th, if Council wishes, with any recommendations from City Council for specific uses of the ARPA funds.  City Council will need to provide the application template we sent out earlier by Sept. 8th for inclusion for the City Council meeting of September 16th, 2021.

Best,
Michael Matthias
City Manager 

Now to the uninformed reader that letter sounds like he is asking the Council if it wants to move the process to September 16. But that is not what it means. What the letter means is that the City Manager has decided to move the discussion to September 16 in response to individual complaints from CMs. There is never any ‘Council’ decision on stuff like this. And if he wants to move the item, he should just do it and not do that song and dance.

That may sound like cranky hairsplitting, but it’s not. In other cities there are mechanisms for the full Council to address items of urgency like this truly as a group. It’s as simple as calling a special meeting–which is really not that big a deal now with Zoom. But that  does not happen in Des Moines. Which is unfortunate, because extending the discussion and deadline for proposals is not the only problem that needs to be addressed.

There’s still the problem of those pesky questions. Here is an email I sent on the 27th. No reply yet from the administration or any of my colleagues.

Mayor Pina, fellow Councilmembers:

At the 22 July RCC meeting, Michael gave a presentation on the
administration's draft proposal. The presentation lasts only 13 minutes. It seemed like such a high altitude overview that I assumed there would be more detail to follow.

Seeing none, on 26 July I sent Michael a list of questions on each line
item. I am sure all of us have questions as well. (I am happy to share
mine with any CM--not for purposes of discussion, but simply to know
what others are thinking about.)

My reply on 27 July was that my questions would be discussed at the 16
September meeting--which seems to indicate that no further reply will be forthcoming.

I am -assuming- that you are all being told the same thing.

It does us no good to move the discussion to 16 September armed only
with the current information. Speaking for myself, all it does is add to my backlog of unknowns as more questions come in from residents.

And IMO, without detailed answers, moving that discussion to 16
September actually makes the situation -more- problematic. As you know,
the budget process has an end point in November. The longer we wait to
discuss these items, the shorter the period we (and the administration)
have to make any meaningful adjustments.

So I want to suggest that the administration immediately allocate
sufficient time to research and respond fully and promptly to all
questions re. the draft proposal from all CMs as they are received--right up until 16 September. If this requires some formal
action, I am fully on board.

---JC

Note that I specifically mention that it may require a Council decision (formal action).

Sidetrack: regarding Revenue loss…

Many of the proposed spending line items are classified as ‘revenue loss’. OK, fine. What about the rest of the corporation? How are all the other funds doing? We’re making assumptions regarding significant reductions in receipts–without seeing those numbers. IOW: It’s difficult to talk seriously about prioritising ‘revenue loss’ without seeing the full financials. Those shoulda been with the materials.

Now back to our original show…

If no one responds to my questions (I can only hope my colleagues also have questions) This re-scheduling actually makese the process worse.

A bit of background: the Budget process is the single most important role of the City Council. In fact, it’s one of the few areas in State law concerning cities that is so specific. Each meeting from the Budget Retreat on August 5 follows a particular series of steps towards a final vote in November.

This is important: after the Retreat, the staff is supposed to have all the information it needs to prepare a legally required Draft Budget for October. It’s a ton of work preparing that initial document because you’re balancing the needs of the entire corporation.

So by moving the discussion from August 5 to September 16, you’re now telling staff that, instead of having two months to integrate CM proposals into the Budget they now have two weeks. Yeah, good luck with that.

And remember, I still don’t have answers to my questions. I may have to wait until that meeting for answers. And so will my colleagues. Worst case? We all see each others ideas for the first time, on September 16. And none of us have answers to our research questions.

So even if a colleague presents an idea, unless it is obvious, I would have a hard time voting for it. And I wouldn’t expect anything better from my colleagues. Even if I had a cure for cancer, without sufficient detail I would never ask a colleague to vote for it.

In short, the administration did something that looks like it’s helping the Council (and the public), but in reality it incentivises decision makers to do one of two things:

• Accept the Draft Proposal as is.
• Do nothing.

And frankly, I am currently leaning towards ‘do nothing’.

The down sides of ‘do nothing’

I’ve heard from CMs in other cities who are going with ‘do nothing’. Why rush? And here’s my 2p.

First of all, to some extent, the spirit of the law is ‘recovery’. One has to at least take that into consideration.

But a bigger deal, g2g, this is probably #327 on the list of things I’ve observed about our administration, where I actually have no problem with the basic idea. But the bottom line is that I don’t have the same level of implicit trust my colleagues do. The whole issue with the ‘Draft Proposal’ is that it was intentionally vague. More on that in a minute.

Do what you’re good at…

I often ramble on about ‘core competency’: There are some things that every corporation is great at and others… not so special. Wanna know what things  the City Of Des Moines is pretty good at? It’s right here.

Get it? The City has a detailed list of prioritised transportation and infrastructure projects planned out many years into the future that are simply waiting for money to be executed. You drop $9M on our COO’s desk and he knows what to do with it immediately.  That’s how you can tell our City is good at.

OK, now, let’s look at the City Of Des Moines Social Services Improvement Plan. Hmm… can’t seem to find it. I know it’s here somewhere. 😀

I know that sounds flip, but do you see my point? We don’t have the same level of planning for social services spending because a City like ours never seriously expects to have these kinds of opportunities on our usual budget. I’ve gotten all these emails and calls and see all sorts of posts on social media saying “We need mental health, homeless, rent, eviction, utilities, job training, food, medical education, PreK… and on and on and on…” And I’m like. Great! But if the City hasn’t already developed a plan as real as our Capital Improvement Projects plan, where exactly are we supposed to spend it? And maybe that should be the real first step. Maybe we use a portion of the stimulus money to actually develop that ‘SSIP’ now. And spend later.

I’m into that discipline stuff…

I keep harping on ‘data’ but what I really mean is discipline. The City Manager rarely provides adequate detail to the full Council. He doesn’t have to because they don’t ask for it. And in the case of things like Body Cameras, since it’s an issue he is passionate about, CM Martinelli was also more than willing to vote for a proposal without complete information.

So the message I have received from all my colleagues is: details-schmetails. So long as we’re OK with the policy we’ll vote for it. If there are kinks? We’ll iron them out later.

I cannot tell you how much that grinds my gears. After EATS and GRO I fail to understand why any of my colleagues are willing to tolerate anything less than complete information before making decisions. It’s not an either/or.

What I’m not sure people understand is how difficult (and rare) it is for the City Council to re-visit anything it doesn’t absolutely have to. Look at our Agendas. Do you see the Council tweaking existing ordinances without some legal requirement? Happens maybe once a year in a ‘code clean-up’ resolution. For example, the ‘chicken’ discussion? I think the last time the Council looked at that was 8-9 years ago. My experience tells me that we should think of our votes as more like building a bridge, rather than like creating a piece of software that can be ‘tweaked’.

The irony is that committee presentations–usually given by directors–are pretty great. I dunno if it’s coincidence but they are now noticeably more detailed. But unfortunately, almost none of the public sees those. The full Council presentations, in contrast, are often like this Draft Proposal–pretty vague.

I want more complete information. I’ve said so since my first meeting. And I don’t know how to get there until we have a Council that is willing to demand it from the administration.

Actually, there is one project…

Finally, Des Moines is a bit different from other cities in that we actually do have at least one ready-to-go economic development opportunity called the Marina Docks. We’re literally doing the engineering work now. The administration has pushed the idea that replacing the docks isn’t just functionally necessary, the reconfiguration will lead to a 25% increase in revenue for our City. And the finance costs are huge. OK, here’s money to start bringing in that extra cash years ahead of schedule.

---