Cut and paste the following site to your browser to see the Study that so many
Livingston Citizens put their time and thought into.
http://www.ci.livingston.mt.us/entranco.shtml
In 2002 every man woman and child, via our urstwhile city commissioners, contributed
$8.82 from the pockets each of each man, woman and child in Livingston to purchase the Entranco study. About $60,000.00 all told. That was four years ago and I only know of one project that was recommended in the study that has been implimented: the sidewalk on 3rd and Callender.
In 2004 the city commission voted to look at the Old East Side School as a new location for the outgrown City County Building. Instead, it was put on the market with no asking price.
Sure, it's legal, but is it right for our community?
Sunday, August 12, 2007
City-County/East Side School give away
Transcript of East Side School Discussion
Livingston City Commission July 23, 2007 Livingston, Montana
City County Building-Community Room
Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Blakeman, Beebe, Grabow (Commissioner Van Aken absent) City Manager: Ed Meese, Attorney: Bruce Becker, City Planner: Jim Woodhall, Public Works Director: Clint Tinsley, Police Chief: Darren Rainey, Fire Chief: Jim Mastin.
From Commissioner Packet “Action Item:”
A. Consider bid for East Side School. Only only one bid was received. Pgs. 127-130” (Pgs 127-130 attached at the end of transcript.)
City Manager Meece; You are all aware that we have had a bidding process on East Side School. We received one bid as a result of that process for the amount of $150,000 cash at closing for direct purchase and as an alternative, if we were to do the bill back at the office, under our own financial wherewithal, then the lease rate would be $9.00 per square foot. If this particular purchaser were to mark those costs, then we would be charged the $9.00 per square foot, plus a rate which amortizes the cost of the construction over three years for a three year contract.
We looked at this---staff looked at this and while it is certainly a genuine bid and we appreciate the, we feel that its below the market value that’s there for this building, uh, as it was priced four years ago, so it would be our recommendation
that, uh, the city commission consider either a direct rejection of this bid or, perhaps we could authorize that just a negotiations with respect to the purchase price.
Commissioner Caldwell: “Do you have ? what that appraised value was four years ago?”
City Manager Ed Meece: I think it was $225,000.
Commissioner Grabow: My understanding was that we would go ahead---that we talked about the possibility of going ahead with an appraisal as well as an appraisal should we condiminimize the building---those two. That is a more reasonable course. My suggestion is that we jump in a go ahead with the appraisals. The parties would be welcomed to come back with future bids.
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, that would certainly was staff’s intent and would still be our intent were we to go on that line---simply, in my absence, it one of those things that didn’t get done for that reason.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Further discussion. Is there a motion?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we decline the bid.”
Mr. Becker: “Motion should be in the positive.”
Commissioner: “Grabow: Okay. I’m sorry. What?”
Mr. Becker: “Move to accept the bid.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Okay, I move to accept the bid.”
Chairman Caldwell: There is a motion to accept the bid. Second?
Commissioner ?: ‘Second.”
Chairman Caldwell: “Discussion? Discussion? Roll call”.
T----: Vicky Blakeman: “Against.”
Mary Beebe: “Against.“
Steve Caldwell: “Against.”
Patricia Grabow: “Against.”
Commissioner Caldwell or Mr. Becker?: “Do you need further direction or we would leave there to renegotiate?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, I would ask the commission authorize that we enter into negotiation at this point to see if there is another agreement that could be reached before proceeding further.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I think it would be appropriate to do the appraisals first.”
City Manager Meece: “That could be part of our process.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is that a motion? Is there a second?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Could we include that in our motion---that we go ahead and approve the appraisals.”
Commissioner Blakeman: “Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a motion for authorization of staff to renegotiate with provision that appraisal be done.”
Commissioner Grabow:” “Mr. Chairman. I don’t see the ? being as viable as simply defined. It seems reasonable to go ahead and get the appraisal then make the decision as to whether or not we are going to even enter into negotiations with this party.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I am beginning to see if the staff’s discretion as to how to procede would require commission action, would it not?
City Manager: “We can do that.”
Commissioner Caldwell: (Public ready to speak at the microphone) “Please. If you could identify yourself.”
Robert Story: “My name is Robert Story, a CPA here in town. I live at 130 South 5th Street. As you may know, my firm studied East Side School building last year with the help of Patricia. And, uh, I just would like you to know that I represent a client who has another substantial piece of real estate here in town that is very interested in East Side School and wants to make an offer at least 20-30% higher.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “You understand, this bid process has been closed.”
Mr. Story: “Yes, I understand.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair.”
Commissioner Caldwell: Mr. Meece
City Manager: That could be part of staff’s discussion (untelligible)
Commissioner Caldwell: “With the understanding that are not currently in a bid process. Is that enough direction?”
City Manager: “Yes.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I wanted to note that the proposal that was made last November was with condiminimizing. There was an interested buyer who would buy just the office space off of East Side School (gym) and two other office spaces
would have netted $1,300,000, so, I mean we are talking about considering the disparity between this particular building being sold. |It seems unreasonable to go ahead. We need to go ahead with appraisals and have those in our hands.”
City Manager Meece: “For clarification, could I ask a question of Commissioner Grabow? You alluded to a $1.3 purchase price. I am just curious. Where does that come from?”
Commissioner Grabow: “From Mr. Story’s proposal last November.”
City Manager Meece: “We didn’t receive a bid to purchase the property.”
Commissioner Grabow: “It wasn’t allowed. The proposal indicated, if you go back and review the proposal then you will see ?”
Commissioner Caldwell: “That proposal was outside the process the city established for distribution of assets.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Yes. It brought up the issue of the value of condominimizing the building.”
City Manager Meece: “It was not a bid for $1.3 million dollars. It was an estimate. It said that there was a possibility that the building might be worth.”
Mark Hartwig: “If I may, I would like to make a public comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Please go ahead.”
Mark Hartwig: “One of the parties that bid on the property.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you, Mark.”
Mark Hartwig: “Obviously I don’t want to belabor the bid. That’s very clear. We would consider negotiating with respect to the lease term. What we set as three years ? square foot triple net as you folks could build out further than that on
the space that come back to you. Obviously as we do the build up ourselves and ask for amortization, then there could be a longer-term leaseten years or whatever works best. I am a little bit bothered by Ms. Grabow’s comments in the process. I understand the decision that’s been made, but Ms. Grabow talked about a $1.3
million dollar bidding process that didn’t exist. We submitted a bid in good faith. I
would pay some homberage, now that there is some talk of other bids that are out there---other people who want to bid in the process that has happened. We are very happy to go into negotiations and discuss with the city. I will say at the outset that things have changed drastically since the process started. One is that you have reduced the amount of land that is available by wanting to keep the parking lot that is on the west side of the building which, we thought, reduced the value. The other thing that has happened is that construction costs have gone up and the market is sliding in general property values, so our bid was made in good faith at 84 cents a foot, the costs of renovating ? handicapped. So, I just want to assure you
that the bid was made in good faith as you consider the options that might be out there.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a humble apology for a misinterpretation.”
Chris Rodgers: “Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with respect to procedure. One is, would it not be observing the bid process over at the Depot---one of the bids for labor came in too high so the foundation simply rejected the bids outright and went to a second round of bids. Would it not seem more appropriate to simply say we have to go through the bid process again rather than negotiating specifically with one particular party.”
City Manager Meece: “We could take another offer down the road. This is a point that Mr. Becker and I discussed several times and thought about the process ourselves. Mr. Rodgers is correct. That is certainly a way you could go. It’s the way we go several times like this or other types of purchases, but if you only have
one bid that is submitted with any type of interest and you go through a rather detailed bid process to get there, just repeating the bid process, doesn’t assure that you are going to have any more bidders or any more fair process. That’s why, and we discussed this earlier, I felt that the next step to take was to enter into negotiations because we have been through a very exhaustive process and its been, I don’t know, at least two or three different tour sessions, with meetings. I think we’ve done quite a bit, I feel like, if there were something that we had missed or some huge issue that create in the bid process, it would come to light.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a shelf life to this offer?”
City Manager Meece: “I think what we’ve done tonight ended the shelf life on this offer, but, from what I hear from the City Commission, we certainly have reserved the right to enter into negotiations, which may precipitate a new offer.”
Chris Rodger: “And yet, I would wonder, whether or not, and, still, I don’t know the extra work it would entail, but, it seems to me that you would not want to be appearing to close the door on any future bids, you know, irrespective of what the first might be.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, we haven’t closed the door on any future bids. We completed a bid process, according to Montana law and we have satisfied that bid process according to Montana law and we think its well within the
administration’s discretion to be able to choose. It’s a good step forward. Anything that would come up, would require approval of the city commission, so even if we enter into negotiations, there is nothing that we could do short of a city commission vote that would make it happen.”
Chris Rodgers: “My second question would be then the procedure would be, at the latter stage of the bids, proceding with this issue, would the next step not be, once you had a second bid in hand, would you not proceed to open public comment on the bid in hand? I was talking with someone earlier on the Historic Preservation
Commission and she suggested that it might be normal procedure that, rather proceed to vote directly on the bid, that public comment occur first?”
City Manager Meece: Mr. Chair, just a second. (Leans over and whispers to city attorney, Mr. Becker.)
City Manager Meece: “I just wanted to consult with Mr. Becker to make sure I was right. We’re not required to undergo a public hearing with respect to a specific bid. Uh, especially with the bid forms. These forms set out different types of information that we requested in the bid process. If we are not satisfied with the
information that’s provided or the information that comes back at the initiation, we will ask for more. We had discussions with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. At that time there wasn’t any discussion about a public hearing process. I think the administration probably said that we would entertain---if we
made a recommendation as a result of the city commission negotiation---part of the normal action item, would be a potential for discussion. If there were public comment, then they could certainly do it. At the same time, when we had the public hearing, over the sale of the building, we had no one from the community show up to give any comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I just want to reiterate that we are not precluding public input, written or oral, at this stage of the game. We just ? organized public hearings---“
Chris Rodgers: “Then the expectation would be prior to the commission’s vote on the negotiation.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Ms. Grabow”
Commissioner Grabow: “Did we receive any public input at all on East Side School---email, letter, anything? Ms. Wend?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wend did come in and testify. We didn’t have any other. In fact, I’m not sure it was a comment. I think it was a question with regard to whether or not the school would be---not a for or against type of comment.”
Action Item B. (End of Discussion on East Side School)
UBLIC COMMENT-City Commission Meeting :
Chris Rodgers comments at the end of the meeting on East Side School
Chris Rodgers: “I apologize for troubling you, but I had further thoughts with regard to the discussion. One of the remarks, and again I apologize, of having toured the building and seen the building and seeing its limitations, I just want to say that I concur with the manager and the staff with respect to stewardship, but I
think he’s off, personally, in my opinion, not by a value of a digit, but by an order of magnitude with respect to the value of the building. I’m not a professional. It’s just my opinion.”
“In a point of fact, he said that he and I were the only people attending, when there was not just one tour. I attended both. He was at the second only. Others were also represented on the tour of the property and, again, I don’t know how this falls under a point of order, but, it seems to me, that if negotiations are going to take
place, then the county should be part of it. The option may exist to discuss with other parties as well. It seems to me, that a county bid could be, essentially, competitive. So that’s the extent of my comment. Thank you.”
Livingston City Commission July 23, 2007 Livingston, Montana
City County Building-Community Room
Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Blakeman, Beebe, Grabow (Commissioner Van Aken absent) City Manager: Ed Meese, Attorney: Bruce Becker, City Planner: Jim Woodhall, Public Works Director: Clint Tinsley, Police Chief: Darren Rainey, Fire Chief: Jim Mastin.
From Commissioner Packet “Action Item:”
A. Consider bid for East Side School. Only only one bid was received. Pgs. 127-130” (Pgs 127-130 attached at the end of transcript.)
City Manager Meece; You are all aware that we have had a bidding process on East Side School. We received one bid as a result of that process for the amount of $150,000 cash at closing for direct purchase and as an alternative, if we were to do the bill back at the office, under our own financial wherewithal, then the lease rate would be $9.00 per square foot. If this particular purchaser were to mark those costs, then we would be charged the $9.00 per square foot, plus a rate which amortizes the cost of the construction over three years for a three year contract.
We looked at this---staff looked at this and while it is certainly a genuine bid and we appreciate the, we feel that its below the market value that’s there for this building, uh, as it was priced four years ago, so it would be our recommendation
that, uh, the city commission consider either a direct rejection of this bid or, perhaps we could authorize that just a negotiations with respect to the purchase price.
Commissioner Caldwell: “Do you have ? what that appraised value was four years ago?”
City Manager Ed Meece: I think it was $225,000.
Commissioner Grabow: My understanding was that we would go ahead---that we talked about the possibility of going ahead with an appraisal as well as an appraisal should we condiminimize the building---those two. That is a more reasonable course. My suggestion is that we jump in a go ahead with the appraisals. The parties would be welcomed to come back with future bids.
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, that would certainly was staff’s intent and would still be our intent were we to go on that line---simply, in my absence, it one of those things that didn’t get done for that reason.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Further discussion. Is there a motion?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we decline the bid.”
Mr. Becker: “Motion should be in the positive.”
Commissioner: “Grabow: Okay. I’m sorry. What?”
Mr. Becker: “Move to accept the bid.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Okay, I move to accept the bid.”
Chairman Caldwell: There is a motion to accept the bid. Second?
Commissioner ?: ‘Second.”
Chairman Caldwell: “Discussion? Discussion? Roll call”.
T----: Vicky Blakeman: “Against.”
Mary Beebe: “Against.“
Steve Caldwell: “Against.”
Patricia Grabow: “Against.”
Commissioner Caldwell or Mr. Becker?: “Do you need further direction or we would leave there to renegotiate?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, I would ask the commission authorize that we enter into negotiation at this point to see if there is another agreement that could be reached before proceeding further.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I think it would be appropriate to do the appraisals first.”
City Manager Meece: “That could be part of our process.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is that a motion? Is there a second?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Could we include that in our motion---that we go ahead and approve the appraisals.”
Commissioner Blakeman: “Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a motion for authorization of staff to renegotiate with provision that appraisal be done.”
Commissioner Grabow:” “Mr. Chairman. I don’t see the ? being as viable as simply defined. It seems reasonable to go ahead and get the appraisal then make the decision as to whether or not we are going to even enter into negotiations with this party.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I am beginning to see if the staff’s discretion as to how to procede would require commission action, would it not?
City Manager: “We can do that.”
Commissioner Caldwell: (Public ready to speak at the microphone) “Please. If you could identify yourself.”
Robert Story: “My name is Robert Story, a CPA here in town. I live at 130 South 5th Street. As you may know, my firm studied East Side School building last year with the help of Patricia. And, uh, I just would like you to know that I represent a client who has another substantial piece of real estate here in town that is very interested in East Side School and wants to make an offer at least 20-30% higher.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “You understand, this bid process has been closed.”
Mr. Story: “Yes, I understand.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair.”
Commissioner Caldwell: Mr. Meece
City Manager: That could be part of staff’s discussion (untelligible)
Commissioner Caldwell: “With the understanding that are not currently in a bid process. Is that enough direction?”
City Manager: “Yes.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I wanted to note that the proposal that was made last November was with condiminimizing. There was an interested buyer who would buy just the office space off of East Side School (gym) and two other office spaces
would have netted $1,300,000, so, I mean we are talking about considering the disparity between this particular building being sold. |It seems unreasonable to go ahead. We need to go ahead with appraisals and have those in our hands.”
City Manager Meece: “For clarification, could I ask a question of Commissioner Grabow? You alluded to a $1.3 purchase price. I am just curious. Where does that come from?”
Commissioner Grabow: “From Mr. Story’s proposal last November.”
City Manager Meece: “We didn’t receive a bid to purchase the property.”
Commissioner Grabow: “It wasn’t allowed. The proposal indicated, if you go back and review the proposal then you will see ?”
Commissioner Caldwell: “That proposal was outside the process the city established for distribution of assets.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Yes. It brought up the issue of the value of condominimizing the building.”
City Manager Meece: “It was not a bid for $1.3 million dollars. It was an estimate. It said that there was a possibility that the building might be worth.”
Mark Hartwig: “If I may, I would like to make a public comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Please go ahead.”
Mark Hartwig: “One of the parties that bid on the property.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you, Mark.”
Mark Hartwig: “Obviously I don’t want to belabor the bid. That’s very clear. We would consider negotiating with respect to the lease term. What we set as three years ? square foot triple net as you folks could build out further than that on
the space that come back to you. Obviously as we do the build up ourselves and ask for amortization, then there could be a longer-term leaseten years or whatever works best. I am a little bit bothered by Ms. Grabow’s comments in the process. I understand the decision that’s been made, but Ms. Grabow talked about a $1.3
million dollar bidding process that didn’t exist. We submitted a bid in good faith. I
would pay some homberage, now that there is some talk of other bids that are out there---other people who want to bid in the process that has happened. We are very happy to go into negotiations and discuss with the city. I will say at the outset that things have changed drastically since the process started. One is that you have reduced the amount of land that is available by wanting to keep the parking lot that is on the west side of the building which, we thought, reduced the value. The other thing that has happened is that construction costs have gone up and the market is sliding in general property values, so our bid was made in good faith at 84 cents a foot, the costs of renovating ? handicapped. So, I just want to assure you
that the bid was made in good faith as you consider the options that might be out there.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a humble apology for a misinterpretation.”
Chris Rodgers: “Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with respect to procedure. One is, would it not be observing the bid process over at the Depot---one of the bids for labor came in too high so the foundation simply rejected the bids outright and went to a second round of bids. Would it not seem more appropriate to simply say we have to go through the bid process again rather than negotiating specifically with one particular party.”
City Manager Meece: “We could take another offer down the road. This is a point that Mr. Becker and I discussed several times and thought about the process ourselves. Mr. Rodgers is correct. That is certainly a way you could go. It’s the way we go several times like this or other types of purchases, but if you only have
one bid that is submitted with any type of interest and you go through a rather detailed bid process to get there, just repeating the bid process, doesn’t assure that you are going to have any more bidders or any more fair process. That’s why, and we discussed this earlier, I felt that the next step to take was to enter into negotiations because we have been through a very exhaustive process and its been, I don’t know, at least two or three different tour sessions, with meetings. I think we’ve done quite a bit, I feel like, if there were something that we had missed or some huge issue that create in the bid process, it would come to light.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a shelf life to this offer?”
City Manager Meece: “I think what we’ve done tonight ended the shelf life on this offer, but, from what I hear from the City Commission, we certainly have reserved the right to enter into negotiations, which may precipitate a new offer.”
Chris Rodger: “And yet, I would wonder, whether or not, and, still, I don’t know the extra work it would entail, but, it seems to me that you would not want to be appearing to close the door on any future bids, you know, irrespective of what the first might be.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, we haven’t closed the door on any future bids. We completed a bid process, according to Montana law and we have satisfied that bid process according to Montana law and we think its well within the
administration’s discretion to be able to choose. It’s a good step forward. Anything that would come up, would require approval of the city commission, so even if we enter into negotiations, there is nothing that we could do short of a city commission vote that would make it happen.”
Chris Rodgers: “My second question would be then the procedure would be, at the latter stage of the bids, proceding with this issue, would the next step not be, once you had a second bid in hand, would you not proceed to open public comment on the bid in hand? I was talking with someone earlier on the Historic Preservation
Commission and she suggested that it might be normal procedure that, rather proceed to vote directly on the bid, that public comment occur first?”
City Manager Meece: Mr. Chair, just a second. (Leans over and whispers to city attorney, Mr. Becker.)
City Manager Meece: “I just wanted to consult with Mr. Becker to make sure I was right. We’re not required to undergo a public hearing with respect to a specific bid. Uh, especially with the bid forms. These forms set out different types of information that we requested in the bid process. If we are not satisfied with the
information that’s provided or the information that comes back at the initiation, we will ask for more. We had discussions with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. At that time there wasn’t any discussion about a public hearing process. I think the administration probably said that we would entertain---if we
made a recommendation as a result of the city commission negotiation---part of the normal action item, would be a potential for discussion. If there were public comment, then they could certainly do it. At the same time, when we had the public hearing, over the sale of the building, we had no one from the community show up to give any comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I just want to reiterate that we are not precluding public input, written or oral, at this stage of the game. We just ? organized public hearings---“
Chris Rodgers: “Then the expectation would be prior to the commission’s vote on the negotiation.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Ms. Grabow”
Commissioner Grabow: “Did we receive any public input at all on East Side School---email, letter, anything? Ms. Wend?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wend did come in and testify. We didn’t have any other. In fact, I’m not sure it was a comment. I think it was a question with regard to whether or not the school would be---not a for or against type of comment.”
Action Item B. (End of Discussion on East Side School)
UBLIC COMMENT-City Commission Meeting :
Chris Rodgers comments at the end of the meeting on East Side School
Chris Rodgers: “I apologize for troubling you, but I had further thoughts with regard to the discussion. One of the remarks, and again I apologize, of having toured the building and seen the building and seeing its limitations, I just want to say that I concur with the manager and the staff with respect to stewardship, but I
think he’s off, personally, in my opinion, not by a value of a digit, but by an order of magnitude with respect to the value of the building. I’m not a professional. It’s just my opinion.”
“In a point of fact, he said that he and I were the only people attending, when there was not just one tour. I attended both. He was at the second only. Others were also represented on the tour of the property and, again, I don’t know how this falls under a point of order, but, it seems to me, that if negotiations are going to take
place, then the county should be part of it. The option may exist to discuss with other parties as well. It seems to me, that a county bid could be, essentially, competitive. So that’s the extent of my comment. Thank you.”
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Hauling vs Incineration and Recycling
A full copy of the Zia Engineering report, (including charts) that the city and county sponsored can be viewed/Printed and/or downloaded from the Park County Web Site at
http://www.parkcounty.org/">http://www.parkcounty.org
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
September 2006
Prepared By:
Zia Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, LLC
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
Fergus 130 No
http://www.parkcounty.org/">http://www.parkcounty.org
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
September 2006
Prepared By:
Zia Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, LLC
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
Fergus 130 No
Protect our City Real Estate
Save Livingston's Real Estate.
Making wise decisions
Is selling East Side School good for Livingston?
Making wise decisions
Is selling East Side School good for Livingston?
Livingston Needs an Independent City Manager
Let's elect our City Manager but it can't be done with our present type of government.
Let's look at city-county government instead. Petitions are being drawn to put City-County Unification on the 2008 Primary and General Election Ballot. Please sign the petition and learn about the pros and cons by reading this blog, asking questions and adding your ideas..
This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is a people of Livingston and Park County issue.
Let's look at city-county government instead. Petitions are being drawn to put City-County Unification on the 2008 Primary and General Election Ballot. Please sign the petition and learn about the pros and cons by reading this blog, asking questions and adding your ideas..
This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is a people of Livingston and Park County issue.
Independent City Attorney
Wise words from San Diego in 1931
Independent City Attorney
"The City Attorney is to be elected by the people. This is a guarantee that the legal head of the government will be able to fearlessly protect interests of all San Diego and not merely be an attorney appointed to carry out wishes of council or manager."
– 1931 election piece asking voters to elect an independent City Attorney
Independent City Attorney
"The City Attorney is to be elected by the people. This is a guarantee that the legal head of the government will be able to fearlessly protect interests of all San Diego and not merely be an attorney appointed to carry out wishes of council or manager."
– 1931 election piece asking voters to elect an independent City Attorney
City-County Unification
NOW! UNIFIED GOVERNMENT!
Park County-City/County Consolidation
A Petition has begun to put UNIFICATION
on the June 2008 Ballot.
In this era of cell phones, computers and global trade, it simply makes no sense, and is far too expensive, for about 16,000 citizens to be governed by dozens of elected and appointed officials, a city, a county, villages, and towns.
We are becoming involved in making it happen in Park County.
Won’t you join us?
1. Unified government will reflect reality. Most of us do not live, work, shop and visit friends and relatives only within the confines of a single town, unincorporated community or city. We are already citizens of Park County. Whether we vote for them or not, we are already governed by the elected officials of the entire area.
2. Unified government will enable more effective leadership. The way things are now, elected officials and department heads are often hamstrung. The tasks of government are divided up too many ways. There would not be the lack of cooperation for what ever reason and then very costly duplication of services.
3. Unified government will bring accountability to government. Only one legislature will be issuing bonded indebtedness, authoring new buildings and buying equipment. Only one executive will hire staff and engage consultants. It will be clearer whom to credit with success, or blame for failure.
4. Unified government will provide better services in everything from snow plowing and sewage to purchasing, fire fighting and policing. Municipalities already know there are efficiencies of scale -- witness the many examples of shared services. With one government, these cumbersome arrangements will not be needed. There will be an end to “Garbage Wars.”
5. Unifying would also give the unified government a fair share of the Hotel, Motel, Dude Ranch and Bed and Breakfast tax to promote our area’s tourism in all of our unified area. We would immediately qualify for 4% bed tax refund.
6. Unified government will save money. The long-range cost of unified government will be less than the growing long-range cost of what we have, especially when hidden costs of government inefficiency and lack of coordination are considered.
7. Abolishing the salaries and benefits paid to redundant upper managers and elected officials will produce immediate savings. Other savings will add up as redundant administration and investment is eliminated. (For instance, rather than laying off municipal employees, it might be better to attain the right sized force through attrition.) We’ll stop redundant equipment – (or at least stop buying it.) A unified government will be not only better but much cheaper. (over)
We would also like to make clear what unified government would not do:
2. 1..Unified government would not change school districts. They could change, but only if citizens make that happen via a process completely independent from the unification we propose.
3. Unified government would not abolish local identity. The Cities of Livingston and Clyde Park, as well as all the unincorporated towns of the County have rich histories. This diversity will not change, because it does not depend on the form of government in the first place: Clyde Park – Cooke – City - Corwin Springs – Emigrant - Gardiner - Jardine – Livingston - Miner - Pray - Silver Gate - Springdale - Wan I Gan - Wilsall etc. Unified government of Butte-Silver Bow did not destroy the communities within Silver Bow County:-Butte (county seat), There still is Centerville, Divide, Melrose, Ramsay, Silver Bow, and Walkerville
4. Unified government would not be less democratic, it would be more democratic by enabling citizens to elect and hold accountable leaders who can actually get things done. Unified government does not mean a City or County “take over.” We propose completely reorganizing area government, not expanding an existing government. Annexations of territory and combinations of municipalities may be needed because of state law, but these would be intermediate steps.
Getting Started
State law provides ways for voters and local officials to set the ball rolling. Indeed, changes in local government are among the few issues in some states that citizens can require by petition to be put on the ballot.
We can learn from Butte/Silver Bow and Anaconda/Deer Lodge here in Montana the 33 unifications achieved elsewhere in the U.S. – sometimes against substantial opposition, including from local officials. That is what happened in Montana and we are planning to bring people in from those communities to talk to us about it through the vehicle of “town meetings.” In both communities, there is an almost universal gratitude that the community took the step to unify and they would not go back to the old system. It should not be a daunting task to review these successes and glean from them what is appropriate for our region. Parochialism is not the answer.
We invite every resident to join us in this effort. We also welcome the efforts of local officials. What can you do?
1. Call and 222-1993 and sign up to get information either by mail or email on meetings, “town meetings,” or presentations on the subject of unification.
2. Call 222-1993 and speak to Bob Moore with any questions you might have. If he does not know the answer, he can help direct your questions.
3. Get involved in an ad hoc unification committee by calling or signing up on line.
4. Please visit http//youworkforus.blogspot.com for more information.
Unified government could literally put Livingston-Park County on the national map. How better to show that we are serious about a better future than to, along with Butte-Silverbow and Anaconda-Deer Lodge, lead Montana in achieving government that reflects 21st century reality?
Below is a breakdown of the costs of commissioners in Livingston-Park County, Butte Silver Bow County and Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Please talk to your friends, neighbors. We all are the grass roots!
Isn’t it time we looked at the pros and cons of a Unified Government?
we now have 3 County Commissioners, 5 city commissioners
Total salar of the city commissioners per year
$ 15,000.00
Total salar of the county commissioners per year
$ 123,552.00
Combined, city county per year
$ 138,552.00
City attorney per year
Livingston, Park County population 16,000
each per year 7 part time commissioners
at the same gross budget
$ 1649.45
per month
Butte Silver Bow population 33,000
Butte Silver Bow Commissioners make per year
$4,145.00
per month
$345.42
There are 13 commissioners in Butte-Silver Bow
Executive Director
per year
74,738
per month
$ 6,228.17
County Attorney
Per year
$ 69,537.00
Per month
$5974.75 plus perks
Anaconda-Deer lodge population 9417
Anaconda-Deer Lodge Commissioners make
per year
$ 6,000.00
per month
$ 500.00
There are 5 commissioners in Anaconda-Deer Lodge
Executive Director
per year
$ 54,522.00
per month
$ 4,543.50
County Attorney's salary is mandared by the state
at $ 69,537.00
per year
In a time of fast track growth, it seems obvious that
real cooperation between the County and the cities of
Park County. What better way to obtain that goal than
unification.
Park County-City/County Consolidation
A Petition has begun to put UNIFICATION
on the June 2008 Ballot.
In this era of cell phones, computers and global trade, it simply makes no sense, and is far too expensive, for about 16,000 citizens to be governed by dozens of elected and appointed officials, a city, a county, villages, and towns.
We are becoming involved in making it happen in Park County.
Won’t you join us?
1. Unified government will reflect reality. Most of us do not live, work, shop and visit friends and relatives only within the confines of a single town, unincorporated community or city. We are already citizens of Park County. Whether we vote for them or not, we are already governed by the elected officials of the entire area.
2. Unified government will enable more effective leadership. The way things are now, elected officials and department heads are often hamstrung. The tasks of government are divided up too many ways. There would not be the lack of cooperation for what ever reason and then very costly duplication of services.
3. Unified government will bring accountability to government. Only one legislature will be issuing bonded indebtedness, authoring new buildings and buying equipment. Only one executive will hire staff and engage consultants. It will be clearer whom to credit with success, or blame for failure.
4. Unified government will provide better services in everything from snow plowing and sewage to purchasing, fire fighting and policing. Municipalities already know there are efficiencies of scale -- witness the many examples of shared services. With one government, these cumbersome arrangements will not be needed. There will be an end to “Garbage Wars.”
5. Unifying would also give the unified government a fair share of the Hotel, Motel, Dude Ranch and Bed and Breakfast tax to promote our area’s tourism in all of our unified area. We would immediately qualify for 4% bed tax refund.
6. Unified government will save money. The long-range cost of unified government will be less than the growing long-range cost of what we have, especially when hidden costs of government inefficiency and lack of coordination are considered.
7. Abolishing the salaries and benefits paid to redundant upper managers and elected officials will produce immediate savings. Other savings will add up as redundant administration and investment is eliminated. (For instance, rather than laying off municipal employees, it might be better to attain the right sized force through attrition.) We’ll stop redundant equipment – (or at least stop buying it.) A unified government will be not only better but much cheaper. (over)
We would also like to make clear what unified government would not do:
2. 1..Unified government would not change school districts. They could change, but only if citizens make that happen via a process completely independent from the unification we propose.
3. Unified government would not abolish local identity. The Cities of Livingston and Clyde Park, as well as all the unincorporated towns of the County have rich histories. This diversity will not change, because it does not depend on the form of government in the first place: Clyde Park – Cooke – City - Corwin Springs – Emigrant - Gardiner - Jardine – Livingston - Miner - Pray - Silver Gate - Springdale - Wan I Gan - Wilsall etc. Unified government of Butte-Silver Bow did not destroy the communities within Silver Bow County:-Butte (county seat), There still is Centerville, Divide, Melrose, Ramsay, Silver Bow, and Walkerville
4. Unified government would not be less democratic, it would be more democratic by enabling citizens to elect and hold accountable leaders who can actually get things done. Unified government does not mean a City or County “take over.” We propose completely reorganizing area government, not expanding an existing government. Annexations of territory and combinations of municipalities may be needed because of state law, but these would be intermediate steps.
Getting Started
State law provides ways for voters and local officials to set the ball rolling. Indeed, changes in local government are among the few issues in some states that citizens can require by petition to be put on the ballot.
We can learn from Butte/Silver Bow and Anaconda/Deer Lodge here in Montana the 33 unifications achieved elsewhere in the U.S. – sometimes against substantial opposition, including from local officials. That is what happened in Montana and we are planning to bring people in from those communities to talk to us about it through the vehicle of “town meetings.” In both communities, there is an almost universal gratitude that the community took the step to unify and they would not go back to the old system. It should not be a daunting task to review these successes and glean from them what is appropriate for our region. Parochialism is not the answer.
We invite every resident to join us in this effort. We also welcome the efforts of local officials. What can you do?
1. Call and 222-1993 and sign up to get information either by mail or email on meetings, “town meetings,” or presentations on the subject of unification.
2. Call 222-1993 and speak to Bob Moore with any questions you might have. If he does not know the answer, he can help direct your questions.
3. Get involved in an ad hoc unification committee by calling or signing up on line.
4. Please visit http//youworkforus.blogspot.com for more information.
Unified government could literally put Livingston-Park County on the national map. How better to show that we are serious about a better future than to, along with Butte-Silverbow and Anaconda-Deer Lodge, lead Montana in achieving government that reflects 21st century reality?
Below is a breakdown of the costs of commissioners in Livingston-Park County, Butte Silver Bow County and Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Please talk to your friends, neighbors. We all are the grass roots!
Isn’t it time we looked at the pros and cons of a Unified Government?
we now have 3 County Commissioners, 5 city commissioners
Total salar of the city commissioners per year
$ 15,000.00
Total salar of the county commissioners per year
$ 123,552.00
Combined, city county per year
$ 138,552.00
City attorney per year
Livingston, Park County population 16,000
each per year 7 part time commissioners
at the same gross budget
$ 1649.45
per month
Butte Silver Bow population 33,000
Butte Silver Bow Commissioners make per year
$4,145.00
per month
$345.42
There are 13 commissioners in Butte-Silver Bow
Executive Director
per year
74,738
per month
$ 6,228.17
County Attorney
Per year
$ 69,537.00
Per month
$5974.75 plus perks
Anaconda-Deer lodge population 9417
Anaconda-Deer Lodge Commissioners make
per year
$ 6,000.00
per month
$ 500.00
There are 5 commissioners in Anaconda-Deer Lodge
Executive Director
per year
$ 54,522.00
per month
$ 4,543.50
County Attorney's salary is mandared by the state
at $ 69,537.00
per year
In a time of fast track growth, it seems obvious that
real cooperation between the County and the cities of
Park County. What better way to obtain that goal than
unification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
