The mayor turned red and scorned three of his colleagues,
including Councilman Bob Dillon who knocked a water cup in
frustration during the latest sidewalk debate Monday night.
Coming soon: Video of councilmembers getting heated during the
sidewalk debate.
The mayor turned red and scorned three of his colleagues, including Councilman Bob Dillon who knocked a water cup in frustration during the latest sidewalk debate Monday night.
After discussing ways to pinch pennies in the upcoming fiscal year – even cutting the intern who would have surveyed broken sidewalks this summer – the council rehashed many of the sidewalk arguments that led up to last year’s election, when voters ushered in three new members in part due the city’s broken sidewalk epidemic. The council discussed modifying the city’s street tree policy to prevent thirsty roots from cracking sidewalks and considered assuming more than half the cost that residents pay to fix their sidewalks. In the end, however, the body voted 5-2 to table these options and instead only to consider fully funding – at an additional cost of $3.2 million – or continuing to half fund sidewalk repairs in a vote at their coming meeting Monday.
Councilmen Dillon, Perry Woodward and Craig Gartman pushed for the vote, much to the chagrin of the mayor, who said “you three” were merely politicking and ignoring the fact that the city already plans to draw $10 million from its $26 million reserve fund by the end of the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. Spending more on sidewalks with economic uncertainty around the corner is not a good idea, Pinheiro said.
“To appropriate $3.2 million tomorrow to fix the problem – I don’t think that’s right thing to do. We have so much coming at us in the future that we do not know,” Pinheiro said. He then asked whether the three men to his left were pushing for a vote next week “for the good of the community or for election politics.”
“Come on!” exclaimed Dillon after Pinheiro referred to the men as “you three” multiple times.
Gartman rolled his eyes at the mayor’s political suggestion and said for the past decade councils have been promising to fix the sidewalks. He asked Tuesday, “If we make a promise during the campaign, shouldn’t we be expected to keep those promises?”
Tuesday, Gartman submitted a financial plan to fix the sidewalks and pay back the $3.2 million over 10 years. While the total cost could be higher as more sidewalks might have broken since the city surveyed them in 2006, Gartman’s proposal comes out to about $408,000 a year at 5 percent interest. Residents can opt to fix sidewalks themselves and receive complete reimbursement or they can join a needs-based waiting list, Gartman wrote in the plan.
“My reception to that idea is still the same as it was yesterday,” the mayor said Tuesday. “We’ve frozen public safety jobs in the budget, and they came up with this off the cuff, in a vacuum, wanting to put sidewalks ahead of past priorities.”
But Woodward calmly rubbed his forehead Monday night and rebuffed the mayor’s notion that he, Dillon and Gartman were coming up with this idea out of the blue: It’s been eight months since the election that centered around residents’ frustrations with the sidewalk issue, he said.
“It’s our obligation to fix the sidewalks… It’s not a questions of if we can pay for this, but it’s a question of how we can get it done,” Woodward said Monday. “We have creative financial folks who came up with $14 million for Gilroy Gardens at the drop of a hat.” If the council passes the fix-it-now approach Monday, City Administrator Tom Haglund said staff will come up with financial scenarios within a month, which would build on Gartman’s proposal today.
“The three” have not only been sectioned off thanks to their stance on sidewalk repairs. The trio also submitted a letter to City Clerk Shawna Freels Tuesday ordering a special meeting to consider Woodward’s proposed sunshine ordinance. They rely on section 408 of the City Charter, which allows three members of the council to override the mayor’s otherwise-sole role in crafting agendas. The sunshine ordinance would bring more transparency to City Hall at an unknown expense, but just like the sidewalk issue, Woodward contends that it has been too long since the election to have not addressed another campaign issue voters wait to see results on.
Councilmen Dion Bracco – who also opposed scheduling the final sidewalk repair vote Monday – and Peter Arellano largely sided with the mayor and advocated a smarter street tree policy and more outreach to residents to educate them on the state laws that mandate property owners maintain adjacent sidewalks.
Together with Councilmember Cat Tucker, who said she would not support an all-or-nothing, fix-it-now vote, Dion and Arellano were also receptive to the idea of broadening the city’s 50-50 program and possibly covering up to 80 percent of sidewalk repair costs. As for Gartman’s specific financial plan, Tucker – who could be the swing vote Monday – remained skeptical Tuesday due to the city’s financial situation and advocated her campaign plan to stretch existing money further. The city’s sidewalk fund has $1 million that earns interest, and the city uses about $350,000 from the General Fund to further augment the 50-50 fund.
“I did like Gartman being more specific today, but my concern is still the budget and where we’ll get the money from,” Tucker said. “I think we should stretch the 50-50 money out and pay for 100 percent of the repairs, but being the fiscal crisis that we’re in, and taking almost $10 million out of the reserve fund, adding another $3.2 million now is not wise.”
State law requires residents to repair sidewalks – though some cities cover none of the costs while others cover all – but confusion arose last year because section 5610 of the state Streets and Highways Code also says property owners are not responsible for portions of the sidewalk damaged by “any person other than the owner” who has “a right granted to him by law or by the city authorities.”
This means that city-protected, sidewalk-damaging trees – which have caused 90 percent of the problems, according to City Transportation Engineer Don Dey – are the culprits. The city made a mistake by requiring them, so now it needs to pay for the damage, according to Dillon. He likened the idea of fixing sidewalks without addressing the trees to baling water out of a boat without plugging the hole.
The city’s Street Tree Policy also presents confusion.
Property owners must repair sidewalks that “are dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city,” according to city code. The tree policy similarly “allows for street-tree removal when the tree presents a public safety hazard,” according to a report by Carla Ruigh, the city’s operations services manager. But “the [tree] policy does not allow for tree removal because of damage to sidewalks.”
That’s why the Parks & Recreation Commission will address what types of trees can be planted and where they should be planted, Community Services Director Susan Andrade-Wax told the council Monday night.
After much tangential debate, however, the council seemed resigned to the controversial vote ahead of them.
“This clearly isn’t going to get decided tonight,” said Councilmember Cat Tucker.
Coming soon: Video of councilmembers getting heated during the sidewalk debate.
