Here's something you might be interested in.
Can you imagine the cost of a new council district being zero? This is exactly what Mayor Jerry Sanders's office tried to get away with until Councilmember Donna Frye sued Monday. The mayor's and city attorney's office agreed to a settlement changing the language that the mayor had proposed going on June 8 ballot. The final settlement will be ratified tomorrow (April 2) in Superior Court. On June 8, voters go to the polls on making the so-called "strong mayor" form of government permanent. A second measure will be on adding a ninth council district. If this passes, it will take six votes (2/3rds) to veto a mayoral decision.
Get this: the mayor's office wanted the ballot to state that the fiscal impact of adding a ninth council district would be $0 to $1,072,000. "This is outrageous," says Frye. Her suit said that the fiscal impact statement "is prejudicially false and misleading in that it communicates to voters that adding a ninth council district could cost the city no money." Obviously, the mayor tried to sneak the language in there to sway the voters falsely. The statement was "not true, not impartial, and misled the public with inaccurate information about the true costs," says Frye. Now, the mayor and city attorney have agreed that one-time expenses for setting up a council office are $80,000 to $100,000. The annual costs for operating a council office are $939,500 to $971,500. Election costs range from $14,000 to $29,000, "and special elections could be much higher," she says.
Frye has issued a memo requesting that the municipal code be amended to have the independent budget analyst, who reports to council, prepare any fiscal impact analysis for any ballot measure, instead of the mayor.
In the past, fiscal impact analyses have been egregiously disingenuous. The ballpark was to have no fiscal impact, voters were told. It costs the City around $20 million a year. Sums up Frye, "There is no free lunch or free council office or free stadium."
Can you imagine the cost of a new council district being zero? This is exactly what Mayor Jerry Sanders's office tried to get away with until Councilmember Donna Frye sued Monday. The mayor's and city attorney's office agreed to a settlement changing the language that the mayor had proposed going on June 8 ballot. The final settlement will be ratified tomorrow (April 2) in Superior Court. On June 8, voters go to the polls on making the so-called "strong mayor" form of government permanent. A second measure will be on adding a ninth council district. If this passes, it will take six votes (2/3rds) to veto a mayoral decision.
Get this: the mayor's office wanted the ballot to state that the fiscal impact of adding a ninth council district would be $0 to $1,072,000. "This is outrageous," says Frye. Her suit said that the fiscal impact statement "is prejudicially false and misleading in that it communicates to voters that adding a ninth council district could cost the city no money." Obviously, the mayor tried to sneak the language in there to sway the voters falsely. The statement was "not true, not impartial, and misled the public with inaccurate information about the true costs," says Frye. Now, the mayor and city attorney have agreed that one-time expenses for setting up a council office are $80,000 to $100,000. The annual costs for operating a council office are $939,500 to $971,500. Election costs range from $14,000 to $29,000, "and special elections could be much higher," she says.
Frye has issued a memo requesting that the municipal code be amended to have the independent budget analyst, who reports to council, prepare any fiscal impact analysis for any ballot measure, instead of the mayor.
In the past, fiscal impact analyses have been egregiously disingenuous. The ballpark was to have no fiscal impact, voters were told. It costs the City around $20 million a year. Sums up Frye, "There is no free lunch or free council office or free stadium."