Bob Yancy said:
maroon barchetta said:
Where is Mr. Yancy to provide a fiscally conservative explanation?
Sorry just saw this.
We are doing a test program for the soccer match and George Strait concert. It is just a test, not permanent policy. I was in support of it.
The strain on your public safety budget relative to these massive events almost cannot be overstated. It's all hands on deck just managing traffic flow and keeping the peace when a hundred thousand humans descend on a city of 130,000.
While we cheer such events for the positive benefits they bring to our city, police and fire and city staff writ large see it as the logistical challenge it is. They also serve and protect us as we have fun and get rowdy, while they miss time with their families. I think it's important to see it in that context.
Anyway, your city hall is strained for operations & maintenance resources. There is money to build things, but there's no wiggle room to run things. This is because the state puts unreasonable and arbitrary constraints on how we spend the comparatively low $.51 tax rate we all pay.
Cities charge for parking in every state in the union. It's not new. Folks are parking in these neighborhoods because of their proximity to campus.
Doing a test run to see if we can offset some of the fiscal pressure created by these events seemed worth the test run to me. That was the call I made and for a pilot program over two events, I stand by the decision.
Respectfully yours,
-yancy
Now that I have had a few minutes to sit down. My response is going to address Mr. Yancy's post.
In Bold - Are the sections in Mr. Yancy's post I am talking about.
Mr. Yancy,
All of this is my opinion.
(response to opening paragraph)With your first statement - Here is where we start off on the wrong foot. I see this as choosing your words very carefully so that your statement is true by dictionary definition. My feeling along with many others is that the test is really to see if the city makes enough profit. Other than that, it is a tentative 'YES' for the program to be permanent. While technically a test. It will not involve a lot of critical trials or even expanded input from the citizens. It's a litmus test to see if it brings in enough revenue. And being a pilot program means no public vote and limited public input.
(paragraphs on public safety budget work/life balance)My response here is in reply to your next two paragraphs relating to public safety budget and the time with their families.
Again, I feel you are choosing your words very carefully here. Everyone knows traffic, restaurants, hotels and so on, are terrible on gamedays. It can definitely be an inconvenience. 'Strain' does not say the city is incapable of providing services or that it is losing money. Yet, it has that tone.
If the city cannot provide proper services during a large event, then it needs to charge the event more in permitting fees. The city could have even more law enforcement from outside the area come in and handle more of the traffic and stadium security duties. We could even bring in extra fire trucks and ambulances if needed. All of this cost would be passed on to the event and paid for during the permitting process. That would free up the budget and allow us to have more officers on patrol for residents.
Additionally, if the city cannot provide adequate public safety services for its residents during a large event that needs to be addressed by the council ASAP and every resident should be notified. That is not an unreasonable ask. I even get a water quality report in the mail every year.
If we meet the standard then there is nothing to be commenting on. Of course things are 'strained' on gameday; ask any restaurant.
You have also previously said you want to bring an events center to College Station to hold concerts etc. How would this be feasible if our public safety budget is strained and you care so much about the work life balance of our first responders? You end your paragraph by reminding us that it is also important to see public safety in this context not just fiscally.
(Applies to section on strained O&M resources)If the city is strained fiscally for operations and maintenance; then why does the city push so hard at building new facilities that it apparently cannot afford to run or maintain?
Why do you push for an events center if there are no funds to operate and maintain it?
When I criticize the city for building a Taj Mahal; It is not about the city having nice facilities. It is about the city being fiscally irresponsible and the trying to nickel and dime us to death. For example, how much more tax revenue would the city have if it built the same city hall close to Central Park by the police station? And then let private industry develop some of the most expensive property in the city.
Every national retail and food related business would have been in a bidding war over that property and paid a massive property tax bill each year. On top of that, the sales tax pouring in would have been awesome and not off the backs of the average resident if the form of fees.
That's why we call it a Taj Mahal, because its 'hey look at me'; versus the city being here to 'serve'.
If I won a big sum of money and spent it all on a giant mansion. Then could not afford to pay the taxes, utilities and maintain it --- who's fault would that be?
We all have to live within our means and constraints. That is all we are asking of the city to do.
(paragraph saying everyone else charges for parking)This excuse is as old as time. It is also irrelevant. We are talking about the City of College Station, no one else. Of course, its because of how close parking is to an event. That is not what's in question here. Please be specific and address the issue at hand.
(last paragraph stating he made the call for the pilot program)
Again, if there is fiscal pressure the city needs to charge the venues accordingly.
The city should not face any fiscal pressure for an event in which they set the terms of the permit (that apply to them) and fee structure.
To me it seems like we really do not need a pilot program. I believe it's a realistic assumption that people will pay to park in the neighborhoods and that residents are not going to be happy about it. The real unknown is how many will park at the mall.
It also seems like the requirements for the city to push through a pilot program are lower than that of something permanent so that's why the 'test'.
(my conclusion)As I close, large events put an extra load on traffic, restaurants, first responders and so on. But the city is in complete control of the permitting requirements and fees they charge. They need to charge the venue.
To me this entire thing is hypocritical and speaks to the larger hypocrisy of our city. For example:
The city has no money to operate and maintain buildings; however, they always want to build new ones.
City leaders usually speak about how large events bring millions of dollars into our local economy. Now in direct contrast with that statement; we hear that large events put a 'strain' fiscally on our public safety budget as well as we need to be concerned about our first responders' work/life balance. --- after previously campaigning for a large event center to hold concerts etc.
None of these kinds of actions or statements build trust between government officials and residents. Why can't the city just start taking care of the little things to build trust and rapport before going after things like this? By not doing so it creates a lot of skeptics and mistrust.
While we see what you want to do; for me, its your (and past council members) words & actions that create mistrust.
