A vivid mental picture floats unbidden into my consciousness when I ponder New Albany and its dysfunctional city government, and that is of a straitjacketed dog being vigorously wagged by a tiny tail.
It’s an incongruous image, of course. While New Albany has never been a purebred (it’s more pit bull than bulldog, frankly), it’s difficult to fathom a civic gene pool so corrupted that a tail can wag the dog. And yet, it is so.
The people show little to no interest in city government. Some claim to be repulsed by it. Others simply can’t be bothered to pay attention. As a result, a tiny minority of the elected and unelected dictate the direction of government – how effective it is, how efficient it is, and how the money is going to be spent.
Considering that city government controls about $1,800 a year derived from the wealth and income of each and every resident (on average), I would think the people would be just a tad more interested in what that money is going for.
This is a systemic problem that, at a minimum, depresses the prospects of making New Albany a safer, more attractive place to live. It depresses property values and valuable investment and, as one commenter often says, makes New Albany an extraction community – that is, a place to exploit more than it is a place to invest in and live in.
When the people can be briefly roused to actually pay attention, it is headline driven. But with only one traditional media outlet, The Tribune, routinely covering city government, most people only hear about sensational stories and not the day-to-day policy direction of the city, which is where the problems lie.
This problem is not a headline problem. Today’s kerfluffle over annexation is only more evidence of dysfunction, not a unique marker. In any given month there is something rising out of the mayor’s office, the council chambers, or a city department that becomes, for a brief moment, a subject of discussion. But on an ongoing basis, little attention is paid.
It’s pretty easy to conclude that those few who believe the city is what it should be, or is at least moving in that direction, are pretty happy to have the playing field to themselves.
I contend that the city is not what it should be. But without any organizing philosophy or plan, city government has become a game of Red Rover where occasional scrums are substituted for serious, intended policy progress.
The result is that New Albany has become a magnet for absentee landlords, drug dealers, and the corresponding crime and dissolution. Property values are under siege and the idea of making New Albany more attractive and valuable is more like a dream than an achievable reality.
There are many examples that, if actually examined by the voters, would shake the public out of its stupor and motivate them to demand policy changes. This doesn’t necessarily mean a change in the individuals, elected or otherwise. It does mean that the people have to speak out and demonstrate their will. It takes a courageous politician to buck the people’s will, but in New Albany the expression of that will is futile.
I believe that my own policy vision for New Albany is the majority vision. I’ve expressed it for almost the entire time I’ve lived here and will continue to do so in the future.
But whether it is a majority vision and whether you agree with it or not, can’t we all agree that the dog (the people) ought to be wagging the tail?
————————————————
In a recent brief conversation, I proposed to a council member that the council should declare an annual legislative agenda. Neither of us delved too deeply into the idea at the time, but it would go a long way toward preventing confrontations like we had at Thursday’s special city council meeting.
Couldn’t the council devote its January meetings to laying out a vision and a schedule for addressing foreseeable issues? Pick an issue. Does the council believe we need more or better parks? A swimming pool? Private, personal parking spaces on public property? Sure, things come up. New initiatives arise. But the mayor and each member of the council has a 4-year window of opportunity to create the conditions for progress or decline. I would think their job descriptions require more from them than simply reacting to tomorrow’s eventualities.
————————————————
Before the council right now are two pieces of legislation to enable the annexation of the Charlestown Road commercial corridor. The boundaries are just about what you would think they would be – A jump across the Lee Hamilton Expressway to take in the commercial developments northwest of the city toward the county line with Clark County. This time, however, the annexation only encompasses the commercial district, leaving the sizable residential portion of that corner of the county for future consideration.
For the city, and its future, this is a no-brainer. New Albany registers the impacts of these developments but garners nothing from their proximity. To some greater or lesser extent, the city is already providing many of the municipal services. It simply isn’t collecting taxes there.
The annexation ordinance evades most of the statutory elements that would permit objection to the annexation, primarily population density, so if enacted in a timely manner, the annexation would not be controversial. Relatively few residences of any stripe are included. All other statutory requirements will have been met.
The plan for the extension of services has been estimated by city staff to be about $10,000. That is one of the findings the city council has been asked to make via a resolution approving the fiscal plan. That’s the same resolution that the council rejected on Thursday evening. Direct administrative costs to bring the annexation to fruition would add perhaps another $20,000.
According to the fiscal plan, the direct financial gains to the city are, roughly: $550,000 in new property taxes; $80,000 in additional CAGIT income taxes, part of which is designated for property tax replacement; $50,000 from CEDIT income taxes; and $5,000 for parks from the relevant property taxes.
Adjustments in sewer revenues will be required when these properties, already on the system, become ratepayers within the city limits. That loss in revenue is approximately $40,000. It is ironic that some of those who argued vehemently for using the city’s income taxes to subsidize those same out-of-city ratepayers are now prepared to use this $40,000 drop in revenue as a criticism against the proposed annexation.
This annexation would bring with it, then, an net annual tax/revenue increase of over a half a million dollars ($600,000 plus if you agree with the city staff findings).
Because of recent legislative changes regarding annexation, timing is critical. If passed by the council and signed by the mayor before Jan. 1, 2011, the annexation would take effect on Jan. 1, 2012. From that date, the city would be required to provide fire protection services (and maybe emergency response/ambulance service). Other services (streets, policing) would need to be provided no later than Jan. 1, 2013.
Property tax revenues would issue to the city in 2013, when 2012 property taxes are assessed and paid. Income taxes would not come in until 2014, as those are calculated and distributed based on the previous year’s assessed values. The newly annexed properties would not be added to the city’s assessed value until the tax year 2012, paid and revealed in 2013, and thus would be deferred from the city distribution for 2 years after annexation.
————————————————
As Carl Malysz, the city’s Director of Community Development, puts it, “Annexation is a means for the city to control and improve its fiscal destiny.” So, you might ask why any member of the council would choose to “kill” the annexation by voting “no” on the resolution adopting the fiscal plan.
At the moment, only one member (Dan Coffey, who represents the 1st council district) has cast a vote against the resolution that would begin the annexation process this year. Coffey says he strongly supports this annexation, at least in principle. But his vote was decisive as 4 other council members failed to attend the Thursday evening meeting. The accepted wisdom is that a majority of the entire council must approve the most significant of actions and with a bare quorum of 5 members present, unanimity was required to move the measure forward.
Coffey was the only one to raise his hand to oppose the resolution, making the consideration, on first reading, of the annexation ordinance a moot point. But 4 other members failed to attend the special meeting called by Mayor Doug England. Had any one of those 4 shown up and voted in favor of the resolution, the six-month annexation process could have proceeded.
At the moment, annexation of the subject parcels is deferred. The mayor has called another special meeting for Tuesday evening. If a fifth vote can be garnered that night, it sets up a New Year’s Eve city council meeting and signing ceremony. If not, annexation could not become effective until Jan. 1, 2013.
This extraordinary called meeting brings with it a sure parliamentary challenge, too. It is the custom of this council to decline to consider for one year any measure that has been defeated unless those measures have materially changed from the time they were first considered by the council.
The fiscal plan resolution and annexation ordinance will not have changed one iota by Tuesday, and it’s predictable that at least one council member, if present, will object to it being considered again. The council president, John Gonder (At-Large) may, and probably will, rule that the resolution is in order; a member may challenge that ruling, which if seconded will require debate and a vote to uphold or overturn the ruling.
I predict the resolution will be presented and passed, but not without at least symbolic resistance. A member may raise a point of parliamentary procedure. One or more may again fail to attend the meeting as a form of silent protest.
————————————————
But I haven’t yet speculated on why any member would put the annexation at risk by voting “no.”
The most believable explanation is to register a protest against the manner in which the measures were presented. Even some of those who voted to pass the resolution have indicated a degree of discomfort with that.
No matter how “expected” this annexation proposal is, the first public notice that it would be put forward this year came informally at the city council’s June 17 regular meeting. Director Malysz, speaking for the mayor, made a request that the council call a special meeting to consider the resolution and ordinance. The council and its president did not do so. The mayor is entitled to call such a meeting, too, and did so, giving the minimum 48 hours of notice on Tuesday, June 22. Concurrently, council members were provided with a draft of the fiscal plan and two days to prepare for official action.
Though the fiscal plan itself is quite comprehensive, it is not incomprehensible. The precis above gives you pretty much all you need to know about it. It is a well drafted document that addresses the legal requirements and explains them thoroughly. In fact, anyone interested in public finance should get a copy, if only to see, in microcosm, how property values translate into tax revenues and how the city obtains its distribution from tax proceeds. And with future annexations contemplated, this would be a great time to bring yourself up to speed before a truly contentious annexation is on the table.
Mr. Coffey stated his objection to the limited time given the members to examine the fiscal plan. To drive his objection home, he voted no and possibly prevented any action this year on a desired program of annexation.
————————————————
Close observers of the dynamic between the England administration and, it’s fair to say, a majority of the council, will tell you that Coffey’s feelings, though less than statesmanlike, are not unique. It often seems that when it comes to relations with the council, the mayor and his administration are following the recipe for growing mushrooms – keep in the dark and covered with manure.
I can say that ten days ago I had no idea that the mayor intended to push for annexation this year. Perhaps the council knew and Mr. Coffey’s protest against the short amount of time he was given to consider the plan is insincere. But this is not the first time the council has been told they “must” pass an ordinance immediately or dire consequences would ensue.
Mr. Coffey, at least, had the cojones to show up and register his displeasure, no matter how that act might turn out to be harmful to the city. He does that with some regularity. I’d say that at least a majority of council members have had conflicts with this administration regarding information flow and at least some have expressed resentment at being told what they “must” do.
I’m not ready to settle on a description of those conflicts or the reasons for them, but the menu of choices is broad.
And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that each of the principals involved rests comfortably that their actions are the right actions and in the best interests of the city.
————————————————
I believe Dan Coffey’s vote was a bad vote. He favors annexation, but used this moment to strike a blow for his and the council’s prerogatives. So nobody wins. Not Coffey. Not England. Not the residents of New Albany.
In the ongoing game of Red Rover, the players again got roughed up. The barometer of ill will goes up a bit more.
There’s no excuse for bringing this annexation measure forward with so little time for the fiscal plan to be examined. And there’s no excuse for Coffey’s “no” vote or for the boycott by the other members.
————————————————
Which brings us back to the beginning of this post. The tail is wagging the dog. But only because the dog is allowing it.
On the annexation issue, Coffey is the tail. On the extremely tentative issue of rental registration, a far cry from an effective rental inspection program, the tail was slumlords who effectively communicated to the mayor (and council?) that they wouldn’t tolerate it. So they dropped it.
And you can be sure that dozens of tails are wagging the city dog on dozens of issues – the ones you know and the ones you don’t know.
It remains a mystery, but we’re not going to stop trying to solve it. Maybe we can bob that tail before too long.
