votewojcik.org

I have been asked why I voted against the Villa-Chateau “compromise.”  Here is my reasoning.

This hearkens back to my values in running for office.  One of my simplest and least controversial positions was that every child deserved to be safe walking or biking in Rochester.  This fails that test.

The compromise consists of putting in speed tables and making the road wider so that a 10′ pedestrian / cycling path can be added on one side.  If I was dictator for a day I would have had a separated path and no speed tables.  I would have been willing to compromise with speed tables and a separated path.

The compromise that was motioned by Bruce Snyder and passed 5-2 (thanks Mark, once again you saved me from being lonely) ignores the safety of pedestrians including our children.  The plan that the city council adopted would protect a child on a tricycle from a speeding truck with a 4 inch white stripe.  This is further complicated by the narrow winding nature of the roadway.  This is not a safe option.  Our public works director specifically stated that this options was the least safe of the options being considered.  The difference in cost for the safer separated path is very small when bonded over the life of the project.  This did not deter the city council.

I oppose speed tables because the do not work.  I know because I live near them on Fox Valley Dr.  They slow cars for the tables and then some use the space between them to “catch up.”  They are also expensive, loud, hard on plows, and bad for emergency response.  Also if the speed tables are only on the driving surface, some drivers will drive on the path.  If they are on the path the are a nuisance to cyclists and wheelchairs.

In this particular case I think that city made a poor decision, pandering to a poorly designed neighborhood while disregarding public safety.  We should have insisted on a separate path for the safety of our children.

–
Regards,

Michael Wojcik
Rochester City Council - Ward 2

By Michael Wojcik

The proposed street light fee in its current form is regressive in nature, hitting both the working poor and efficient neighborhoods hard. We should also be concerned that this fee may be abused. Our need to raise revenue should be done with equity in mind.

But before I get into the details of this fee, I would like to concede some points and do some “City Finance 101.”

The city of Rochester has financial issues that are largely the result of items beyond our control. While we are blessed to have 110,000 jobs for 45,000 households, the city provides infrastructure and services for many that are not helping us pay for the costs. The city of Rochester only has two tools to raise funds; property taxes and fees. We do get a tiny slice of sales tax, but that has limited uses due to state regulation. Taxes should be a three-legged stool (property, sales, and income), but local governments are only allowed to levy property taxes.

Local Government Aid (also known as the “Minnesota Miracle”) was a tool whereby local governments traded their ability to raise funds through various forms of taxation in exchange for the fair sharing of funds at the state level. Among other things, LGA addressed the situation where a person making $650,000 annually at a downtown job but living outside of the city pays almost nothing for city services. Given the ratio of jobs to households in Rochester, this situation is common.

Since 2003, Tim Pawlenty and other state leaders have skirted their own budgetary responsibility by borrowing or taking from local governments. Based on growth from 2003 promised LGA numbers, Rochester is losing out on roughly the equivalent of 150 police officers worth of aid in just 2010. While failing to live up to their side of the Minnesota Miracle, Pawlenty and those who back him have actually further reduced cities’ ability to raise funds in a fair manner.

While I have been outspoken about our local spending priorities, the real per capita city operating budget in 2010 is less than it was in 2000. City government is getting smaller, more efficient, and has been for years.

Though it is not well known, we previously reduced the 2010 levy by the same $1.3 million that the lighting fee would raise. The discussion about where the money is going stems from poor communication. Every dollar that comes in for lighting will pay for lighting.

I have a number of concerns about this fee, however.

We know that sprawl increases lighting costs, but we do nothing to ensure that properties on large frontages to pay a fair amount. Let’s consider if the city were to build a new mile of residential road with lights every 160 feet. We could allow homes with an average of 50 ft. of frontage per lot like many older neighborhoods, or we could allow frontages of 250 ft. like some other subdivisions. Let’s also assume it costs $50 annually to operate each light.

Given the regressive charge, the dense neighborhood will be paying nearly three times the cost of lighting their street. Or, put another way, those properties will be paying for their lighting and then a significant additional amount for the rest of the community.

Conversely, the other neighborhood will be covering only about half of their costs. We are overcharging the efficient development to subsidize the sprawl. This is poor fiscal management. We also ignore that some neighborhoods should probably pay a reduced amount because they have private or less lighting. We will never get a perfect solution, but a tiered solution would be better.

There is a claim that the average property owner will be paying less with this fee because entities that are not currently paying taxes will now be paying. This claim is unsubstantiated, and my suspicion is that this may not be true given the heavy weighting of this fee towards dense residential property, particularly if the citizen is able to itemize their property taxes.

My primary concern with enacting a new fee, however, is our history of being irresponsible with fees. Our RPU customer charges are regressive and disproportionately affect those that do the best job of conserving energy. Our water fees are still regressive but have been improved. Storm water fees are arbitrary and do not reward responsible decisions.

The most abusive fee is the wastewater fee. This fee pays for the operating and maintenance of our wastewater treatment system (good), and $68 million in development subsidies over 18 years (shameful). We increased this fee to keep our developer charges artificially low.

When I presented the data in a city council meeting not a single city employee, developer, or council member disputed my calculation. But we approved this anyway and did so without getting anything for the taxpayer in return.

Given the inequities in the proposed fee and our history with fees, I remain concerned about adding a new fee. I would encourage citizens to demand that their council member only support fees that are fair and equitable.

The following letter is provided by Ward 5 Council representative Bob Nowicki. Overall, though we are in disagreement with this fee because it is regressive, Bob’s comments are well thought out and worthy of posting here.

communitylightingfee-070610

In the coming weeks, more information will be posted separately on each of the goals for 2010 listed here. Here is the list of goals and issues that I would like to see addressed in 2010. This list is given in no particular order.

1. Communicate more with constituents: more web postings and more door knocking (this has already begun)

2. Formation of a small group advisory committee

3. Working better with other levels of government (county, school district)

4. Pass a city tree ordinance

5. Formation of a neighborhood association in Country Club Manor and Diamond Ridge areas (this is underway!)

6. Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau

7. Neighborhood design and development standards

8. Core zoning

9. Real time pricing and feedback from RPU

10. City wide broadband

11. Focus on high quality workforce housing developments with integrated ownership

12. City energy baseline

13. Create GLBT equality policy

14. West on 2nd Street planning (2nd St from 52 and west)

In this environment where all city employees are sacrificing for the good of the community, I am disappointed that certain organizations are above sharing in that sacrifice or even above oversight for that matter. I won’t temper my words when I say the City Council and City Administration have failed miserably in its oversight of the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau (RCVB). The purpose of this note is to specifically point out where we have failed and problems that have arisen, and what we should do to address these issues. I believe the RCVB has done many good things for the community however, I don’t believe this makes them immune to oversight or fiscal responsibility. If we are to go forward with an expanded Mayo Civic Center (MCC), I need to be able, in good faith, to tell our citizens that we have a well run organization. To achieve this, the issues below must be addressed.

Issue 1: City Administration has failed to enforce the City-RCVB contract

In the 11 months that I have been on the City Council, the RCVB has failed to honor the contract with the City dated 12/11/2007. As highlighted in the following points, clearly we need to enforce the contract and provide some taxpayer oversight.

Section 2A: The current financial arrangement does not incent the RCVB to prioritize booking the MCC over some other site.

Section 3: The contract specifies that a member of the city council should be on the board, however Brad Jones indicated that this is the City Council President, which runs contrary to the guidance set forth in the City Charter for council appointments. Further, we have not been offered the ability to review the make-up of that group. Because this is a self-appointing group, our ability to ensure the board has the interest of the whole community in mind, and not a few special interests is key.

Section 4: We should have received the 2010 RCVB  budget by August 1, 2009.  We did not. We also must approve this budget. We have not. The RCVB does not have the authority under this contract to spend City money in 2010 until we approve their budget. That said, I seriously doubt the City Council approved their budget in 2009 either. Note this power was denied when Brad Jones came before us. At the end of the day, the City Council is in complete control of the RCVB according to this contract.

Section 5E: I do not believe the RCVB is sufficiently inegrating their mission with that of the MCC.

Section 6-A, B, E1-E8, F: I suspect many, if not all of these, are not being done, but this would be for the City Administrator to determine.

Issue 2: The City of Rochester is not providing sufficient oversight of the RCVB.

At this point we are in the situation where the fox is guarding the hen house. Essentially, we have abdicated our budget and board of directors oversight. Even City Council representation is not being done in compliance with the City Charter. We have created a dynamic where there is a self appointing board with no real oversight. This may or may not have an interest in using some of their funding to provide subsidy in the operations of MCC where as that may be the appropriate decision for the city. Any board member with a self interest in the hospitality industry would have no incentive other than to spend the full sum of the allocated monies regardless of the return on that investment. As such, there needs to be some oversight and attention to the appointees on the board however, we have failed to do both.

Issue 3: The current funding structure does not align RCVB interests with the interests of the City.

We as a city should not operate under the assumption that the way we have always funded things is good enough for the future. There was a belief when LGA was cut, some groups would be immune to the pain. I don’t believe that should be true however, our proposed budget does just that. We as a city fund both the MCC and the RCVB however, we expect the MCC to comply with City funding constraints while the RCVB has no such expectation.

Currently and RCVB board member that owns or manages a hotel would have an incentive to have a small convention hosted at their hotel. This decision may hurt our citizens if that event could have been held at the MCC. The net result would be that the MCC would see a decrease in revenue that directly translates to an increase in taxpayer assistance to the MCC. This is a fundamental issue because we artificially take money from different pots for these different organizations. We have made a conscious decision to not reward or punish the RCVB budget based on the success of the MCC. Financial incentives are the strongest form of incentives and I don’t think we can continue with the current disconnect between these to entities. The budget of the RCVB needs to be tied to the budget of the MCC.

Issue 4: Without oversight, the RCVB has operated as a rogue element. The director of the RCVB knowingly provided false information to the City of Rochester during budget reviews.

I will be clear that as I have investigated this matter, I find the information below to be particularily infuriating. I had been provided some information as to what might be going on from a source that I will continue to keep anonymous. Based on what I heard, I made a request to local legislators for information exchanges between themselves and the RCVB. The note below was a response to my inquiry to one of the legislators. I am including the entire note below and will identify four issues I have with this note.

1) False Statement: The City of Rochester took no position on this bill. Further, if we had, I suspect we would not have made a decision that, in theory, would not be in our best interest. I did confirm with the City Administrator that no such policy exists.

2) Contradiction: I had a number of questions for Mr. Jones at the COW meeting, but essentially stopped my questioning when it became clear we were not going to receive truthful answers. If you recall, I specifically asked if he had indicated the City opposed HR 2077. He lied and stated he had not. The note below offers the needed evidence that Mr. Jones knowingly lied to us. When I stated, “I stand corrected”, I knew I was being lied to, but decided not to proceed. I had a number of additional questions, but decided it would not be fruitful to proceed.

3) Thinly veiled threat: When we pay 100% of a salary, I don’t think it is appropriate to make political threats and, at the same time, misrepresenting the position of the City. I think everyone with a pulse understands the meaning of the following: “ I don’t think that you (or any of us) want to wage this battle in your own district if it becomes more public.” Completely unacceptable.

4) Policy Recommendation: I also take exception to the notion that Mr. Jones is in a place to be offering policy recomendations behind the back of the City. In this note, Mr. Jones suggests we raise local sales taxes if we have funding concerns. Regardless of how I feel about this, he is completely out of line in having this discussion. If Mr. Jones is interested in setting public policy, I suggest he should run for office, or at least discuss his ideas with those of us that do set policy.

*********************************************BEGIN NOTE*****************************************************

From: ”Jones, Brad” <bjones@rochestercvb.org>
To: ”Tina Liebling” <rep.tina.liebling@house.mn>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:35:39 -0500
Subject: HF 2077 Lodging Tax

Good Afternoon Rep Leibling,

To say the least, your comments yesterday regarding HF 2077 section #4 were extremely disheartening when you said that you “do not like the idea of dedicated lodging taxes that must be spent in one certain way (tourism) whether it is spent well or poorly. We cannot afford to have dollars spent without knowing the outcome. And that you applaud Chair Lenczewski!” In other words you do not support dedicated funding to the CVB but rather would like to see the funds go directly to the Cities to use as they see fit.

At Monday’s Government affairs committee the City of Rochester and Mayo Clinic both made it known that they oppose section #4 of HF 2077, not to mention the many business owners and workers in Rochester’s Hospitality Industry.

I thank you for your continued hard work but I would encourage you to take a second look at this issue and how it would affect your district and the State of Minnesota, I don’t think that you (or any of us) want to wage this battle in your own district if it becomes more public.

Most everyone who attended was extremely frustrated at Chair Lenczewski and the committee. The hearing began at 10:30AM, our bill was number 8 on the list, however the Chair did not take them in order. The committee broke at 12 to go to the floor for a session. They reconvened at 2PM in another room, Representative Lenczewski introduced her bill around 4PM then took another break to move to another room. Public testimony for HF2077 started around 4:45PM and by that time as you know half of the tax committee members were already gone.  The impression that everyone walked away with after public testimony was that the most of the committee members there simply did not care about what was said.

Comments from Chair Lenczewski were also very disheartening: Although I agree that these are difficult times and the committee is attempting to give cities some flexibility to help them fill their budget deficits. She does not understand how our industry works and simply is wrong when she states that The dedicated hotel lodging tax money (which is paid by visitors) should be used for services for local individuals over visitors. She acknowledged that she had received a lot of emails on this issue as she was sure other committee members had but stated that cities COULD use the money. If they are happy with the services their CVB’s provide then they also can choose NOT to use that money.

A major question that Chair Lenczewski seems to elude very well is: Why should hotels have to pay more than other businesses in a community to fund local services? This is an unfair tax on the service sector and in her own words a blatant money grab for local governments. Let’s just allow them to raise the local option sales tax if they so choose – which the chair is opposed to. Interesting train of thought.

Brad M. Jones, Executive Director, Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau

****************************************END NOTE*********************************************

Issue 5: The RCVB spending is out of control.

As I pointed out in the budget hearing, the growth at the RCVB far exceeds that of the City. While we have struggled with our own funding, we have ignored this organization that drinks from the same well. I have any number of facts that I am willing and able to share. If you remember only one thing, it  is if the City was to have grown at the same rate as the RCVB (since 2001) we would have to increase property taxes by 67%.

At the same time, about a half million has been paid out in employee  bonuses since 2001. I question the structure of these bonuses (based on projections vs. actual) as well as the notion that one City organization would be paying out bonuses while we issue furlough days and pay freezes to other organizations.

I have heard some wild claims of economic impact, but wanted to share with you a reality. By Brad Jones’ own numbers, we have moved from 50,000 room night stays to 100,000. Let’s just assume that each stay translates to $100 for hotel and $100 in other spending per day. In this case our $735,000 direct investment in 2001 yielded about $225,000 in direct local tax revenue. In 2009, our $1,750,000 yielded $450,000 based on 100,000 nights. All of this while the MCC still requires a huge subsity. To be clear, this is good for our lodging industry however, the fact we have prioritized these funds over everything else is unwise. I also wonder how many of those 100,000 nights would we have regardless.

One thing I understand about the nature of groups is any group will spend all of the funds at their disposal. Thus, in order to prevent waste, we need strong oversight. We have an epic failure in that regard.

Proposed Solutions

Take corrective budgetary action: The RCVB budget requires council approval, we should only approve it if it has been reviewed and is in line with the sacrifices of other groups. I would suggest we add the MCC operating subsidy as a line item in the RCVB budget. This amount would bring their budget growth approximately in line with the growth of the city.  I think this would also set a precedent of limiting our spending on convention/event related activities to 2% of Hotel/Motel revenues. Remember that 2/3 of this revenue is Mayo related.

Board of Oversight: We need real oversight, not pretend oversight. I propose we create an Events Board to oversee the MCC, RCVB, and other related civic groups like Rochesterfest. Right now the RCVB is run by a self appointing board that no elected official has control over. We would create a board of 5 similar to the RPU board, consisting of 1 council member, 4 at large members appointed like our other boards, and staff serving as ex-officio members. Unlike the current situation, we now can oversee and control the taxpayer funds.

This group would over see the integration of the MCC and the RCVB, and provide budgetary oversight of their 2% Hotel/Motel Funds. They would also be tasked in ensuring the conduct described above is addressed and never repeated.

The MCC would no longer be under the auspices of Parks and Recreation Department, which was never a good fit. This will allow them to focus more directly on their mission and leave the MCC to a group that is more specialized for that institution.

Unified MCC - RCVB funding and budget: As explained above, the current fund mechanism has a disconnect between the performance of the MCC and the group that is charged with filling it (RCVB). This will eliminate that disconnect. Currently, there is no concern for the RCVB if the MCC requires a large operating subsidy, with the funding coming from the same 2% the RCVB’s funding will be related to their effectiveness. Both of these groups would also be under the umbrella of the newly created board.

Independent Operating Audit: I think we need a new audit, not necessarily of financial statements, but rather of the conduct and performance of the RCVB. There has been behavior that should be viewed by this council as not in the interests of the city.  I want to understand that if an event is being held in a private venue instead of the MCC, that every effort was made to ensure the event was held in the MCC. I also want to see increases in staffing where appropriate and providing benefit.  I am also interested in ensuring the compensation for officials in this non-profit is in line with that of other Rochester non-profits, including those funded by the city, such as RNeighbors. I specified I want an independent audit because, based on the issues detailed above, I don’t trust the Council, City Administration, or the RCVB Board will show the independence or diligence to get a true feel for the status of the RCVB. I would request an audit be performed by a group not affiliated with Rochester or the RCVB.

Michael Wojcik
Rochester City Council - Ward 2

To: Distinguished Members of the Rochester Charter Commission

From: Michael Wojcik, Rochester City Council, Ward 2

Date: 11/08/2010

RE: Thoughts on the Rochester City Charter

The first priority of an elected official should be to serve as protecto of the democracy. Regardless of differences candidates have on the issues, so long as the democracy is fair, open, and equitable, our citizens will have the power to shape the democracy as they choose. However, as soon as advantages are given to some and not others, the system can become manipulated by cronyism.

It is my hope that every member of the Charter Commission agrees with the following principles:

• Every neighborhood and citizen is deserving of equal representation.
• Advantages should not be given to individual candidates.
• Every citizen should have an equal challenge in pursuing elected office.

So long as we agree on these core democratic principles, there are decisions that should be reviewed for their consequences on the above principles.

First, I would like to discuss some real world implications as they pertain to the elections.

• Incumbency matters-The simple fact is that running as an incumbent offers a candidate an advantage over other candidates, both in terms of established network and name recognition.
• Timing matters-The reality is that a candidate running in a presidential election year must have more funds at their disposal to wade through the noise of more publicized races. This is similarily, but less so true from congressional election cycles.
• Overlap matters-A significant number of our mayors, council presidents, and non-City elected officials have come from the ranks of the City Council. However, our rotating cycle of elections currently punishes some citizens interested in pursuing office while not others.

With these principles and observations in mind, I would like to initiate discussion on the following six items. Each is intended on being a separate discussion.

1) Term Limit-In 1994, citizens successfullly enacted by referendum Section 3.011 of the City Charter. This rule is not enforced as I understand it because it was determined not to comply with the State Constitution. This however, is no excuse for the Charter Commission not to attempt to enact the clearly expressed will of Rochester voters. I purpose that we work within the framework as we can and implement by Charter Amendment that any individual exceeding the years in office specified by Section 3.011 be paid total compensation of $1 per year. The hope would be that this would serve as incentive for elected officials to voluntarily comply with Rochester’s expressed interest in term limits.

2) Immediately end appointments to the City Council-Perhaps no current policy is as unfair to our citizens as our current policy of appointing candidates to office and then letting them run for re-election as incumbents. By definition, a section of the city is having a leader assigned by a collection of elected officials that do not represent that section of the city. Moreover, the gift of incumbency has been bestowed upon someone who did not earn that privilege. This practice is a method of potentially placing an individual that could never win an election based on their own merits into office, and then subsequently giving them and advantage in re-election. This is also a process that potentially places lobbyist or political party cronyism above direct representation. We should leave the seat vacant of have a fair election. This could easily be done, see item number 6.

3) Opposition to a 7th Ward-I have heard discussion of this and would like to state my rational for why this is not needed. The reality is that given a City Council of seven, this would leave us with eight votes which is unwise, or would lead to the dissolution of the council president’s role. I would point out that given the current distribution of the population within the wards after the 2011 redistricting, some wards are likely to lose constituents. Also, the county districts, which appear to be manageable, are similar in size to the City wards as the County divides their population seven ways, while the City just six.

4) Gerrymandering-I will state that it is my opinion that the current drawing of the Rochester ward boundaries is unfair to many neighborhoods. Gerrymandering is a serious issue in our democracy, and I would like to see Rochester take a proactive stand fighting for neighborhood continuity in our Charter. Currently Kutzky Park is divided into three wards. A great deal of frustration has been expressed to me that some citizens feel that their representative neither takes the time to attend neighborhood meetings, nor understand their issues. Such is the case with gerrymandering. Core proactive neighborhoods can be split into many wards thereby reducing their ability to have dedicated representation. The splitting of established neighborhoods can easily be eliminated with a Charter Amendment stating that established neighborhoods must be in one ward. There is enough granularity in other sections of Rochester to easily allow planning to achieve this.

5) Election dates-Our current election schedules potentially treat our citizens differently whether they live on one side of the street or the other. This violates sound democratic principles. First and foremost, our staggered election cycle means that someone living in Wards 2, 4, or 6 will require more resources to run a similarily effective campaign. Our citizens deserve democratic equality. Second, an office holder of a ward position will either have to relinquish their seat or not, depending which office they are interested in pursuing. Our citizens deserve democratic equality. It is my understanding that the current schedule was established with voter turnout in mind. I would suggest this only further serves to provide incumbents with an ongoing advantage. As the number of voters that may be voting primarily for higher offices like President or Congress, name recognition gains an edge over understanding of candidate or issues. Every citizen deserves the same conditions under which they should run for office because our citizens deserve democratic equality. Our current election schedule promotes the antithesis of democratic equality. There are a number of solutions that would achieve better parity; I will suggest only one, but would prefer any system where every citizen and election is equal. I feel that council elections in the off years would be more appropriate. I would like to see all six at the same time. There is a common myth that we council members are so precious that we need continuity. Having seen the system on the inside,  I assure you that we are not that precious and the staff can provide the continuity. If this were done, council president and mayor races could be held at any time as the elections would remain equal. Any argument that we are increasing cost is weak and can easily be offset by moving to a different election structure (see item 6).

6) Ranked Choice Voting (or IRV)-Rochester is now the only legitimate first class city in Minnesota that does not use ranked choice voting. Every court that has reviewed the legality has affirmed IRV as constitutional. We saw in Minneapolis that the elections did not create confusion and most results were quickly available, despite lagging machine technology. At this point, I am not necessarily advocating for a change unless we use the cost of elections as an excuse to avoid fair elections. Regardless of whether we choose to move in this direction, we should at least ensure that as we go through upgrade cycles in our voting equipment, we ensure we get capability to count IRV ballots in the future. There has been much discussion about IRV, but I would like to point out some advantages for our citizens in Rochester.

A) Less election expense: the election cost is reduced because the process of requiring both a primary and general election is eliminated.

B) Special elections are easier: no longer will we skirt democracy by appointing individuals to office.

C) Less dirty campaigning: perhaps the most underrated advantage. We have seen at every level of politics that the process for winning can consist of getting down to two “legitimate” candidates and then simply making the other candidate look worse than you. Why not? It works very well. IRV however, allows voters not only to choose a preference, but rank candidates such that the penalty of irritating voters is far greater. Not surprisingly, the Minneapolis elections were seen as being more issue centric with less dirty campaigning.

At an absolute minimum, let’s make sure that we understand the process and what we need to have the option in the future. Local governments remain the engine for change in the state. We have the ability to show our citizens a better, more cost effective way.

I look forward to having a meaningful discussion and answering your questions at you January meeting. I am sorry I am not in attendence for this meeting, but by the time I had been informed I was on your agenda, I had a conflict. Please plan on a discussion in January and bring your toughest questions and candor. As most of you are likely aware, I do not pull my punches and I will offer you the very same unapologetic candor I have brought to Rochester City Council.

Sincerely,

Michael Wojcik

Rochester City Council Ward 2