It’s official. According to an independent fee consultant hired by our city, Coronado loses approximately $1.5 million per year of fee revenue from required city services related to development activity. Instead of collecting fees for development-related services from developers, our city forces Coronado taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of about $1.5 million per year. With a 4-1 vote, Councilwoman Barbara Denny has stepped up as our sole leader for reasonable and legally justifiable development fee recovery in Coronado.
Coronado Common Sense (CCS) sat down with Councilwoman Barbara Denny (BD) recently to find out the facts about what the heck is going on with development fees in Coronado.
In the July 15th weekly update from the city manager’s office, I came across this:
User Fee Public Workshop: On July 26, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., a public workshop will be held in the City Council Chambers to review and discuss the development-related user fees that were presented to the City Council on June 7. The workshop will begin with a presentation highlighting the key findings of the study that was conducted. Letters of invitation have been mailed to the Chamber of Commerce, MainStreet, Coronado Historical Association, Builders Industry Association of San Diego, as well as local contractors and architects who are responsible for the majority of commercial and/or residential construction in Coronado. The staff report has been placed on the City’s website. A public notice of the workshop will appear in two successive editions of the Coronado Eagle & Journal prior to July 26.
I wondered what this was all about. Giving only six business days notice for a workshop supposedly intended for the public, and then scheduling it for a Tuesday night during the dinner hour at the height of the summer seemed very strange to me. It made me think that maybe many of the interested residents could be on vacation or occupied elsewhere and only the special “invited” guests would be able to attend. This could cause the feedback from the workshop to be skewed in favor of the building industry.
So I sat down with Councilwoman Barbara Denny—who was the lone vote against the workshop—to get some information for the Common Sense readers.
CCS: Hello, Councilwoman Denny. Thank you for this interview.
BD: Hello, Susan. You are most welcome. As you know, I enjoy reading CCS online regularly.
CCS: Thank you, Councilwoman. What do you think about this development fees workshop being held tonight at city hall?
BD: I think it’s a bad idea because it’s another waste of taxpayers’ money through the wasting of more city resources. As I said on the record at our June 7th council meeting, I like and admire the groups and individuals that were invited to the workshop, but I still think the workshop is a bad idea.
I didn’t vote for this workshop. The workshop passed by a large majority of council on June 7, 2011 in agenda item #11C. The council vote to hold this development fee workshop was 4-1 with myself dissenting.
Even so, I encourage those residents who are available tonight to attend the workshop and voice your opinion there.
If you can’t attend the workshop, kindly feel free to continue contacting me at your convenience to discuss this important matter. It’s my job to represent you and I enjoy my job very much.
I have already heard from a great multitude of residents, but I can’t ever hear from too many people in Coronado. In my opinion, the more people I hear from, the better.
CCS: Why do you think this development fees workshop is a bad idea? Why didn’t you vote for it?
BD: As I said on the record at our council meeting on June 7th, it’s unfair to the residents of our community who did not receive special treatment and a special workshop in council chambers, like the one being held tonight for those associated with the development and building industry, before the fees were raised at the municipal pool and municipal golf course.
To add insult to residents’ injury, the fee increases at the municipal swimming pool and municipal golf course were not reasonable and expected, but instead were unreasonable and unexpected. The municipal pool fees doubled in two relatively quick steps and the annual golf pass was eliminated within a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, these two recreation fee hikes deviated from the recommendations in the city staff reports, which means that the public had no notice of the eventual outcomes.
To add even more insult to residents’ injury, the increased municipal pool and golf fees were put into effect before council ever received and reviewed the results of the independent consultant’s fee study, which study was contemplated for a long time at city hall.
CCS: Could you explain the timing?
BD: As I said at the time of our deliberations on the municipal pool and golf fees, council put the cart before the horse by charging ahead and making decisions to raise two categories of recreation fees—municipal pool and municipal golf—without the benefit of the results of the independent fee consultant’s study, which study was paid for with Coronado taxpayers’ money.
Before each decision, I challenged my council colleagues to think hard about this question: Why hire a professional fee consultant if you aren’t going to even receive his advice first before making changes to the municipal pool and golf fees?
In other words, I think it was unwise to make residents pay for an independent fee study, but make the decisions to raise the municipal pool and golf fees before the results of that independent fee study were in. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
CCS: Could you explain what happened to the municipal pool and golf fees?
BD: The municipal pool fee problem was created for our residents in two council meetings. First, on November 3, 2009 in agenda item #5H by a vote of 4-1 with myself dissenting, council instituted something called the “cooperative pool model” in order to set the stage for manipulating the municipal pool fees with the end goal to make the city pool fees “more competitive” with the school pool fees. Then on March 16, 2010 in agenda item #8A by a 4-1 vote with myself dissenting, council decided to raise and then double the municipal pool fees within a relatively short period of time.
The golf fee problem was created for our residents in one council meeting. Council eliminated the annual pass and increased golf fees on September 1, 2009 in agenda item #11D by a vote of 4-1 with myself dissenting. In addition to the elimination of the annual pass, residents made good points about out-of-state golf fees, tournament fees, senior discounts and the no-refund policy which were went ignored by the rest of council.
Unfortunately during council deliberations on the pool and golf fees, a disturbing pattern emerged which I have spoken about on the record, both during the fee deliberations and afterward at subsequent council meetings.
The disturbing pattern that emerged was this: Residents with reasonable concerns were completely tuned out. And council relied on what I consider to be unrealistic financial estimates and faulty financial reasoning that defied basic economic principles. The result is that council rushed into municipal pool and golf fee hikes that are unreasonable, unfair and unsuccessful.
All of this was done to the detriment of Coronado residents, for whom recreation has obvious and undeniable health benefits. In this dreadful economy our residents have taken serious hits to their personal and business finances in many ways. In my opinion, council should have refrained from adding to residents’ financial burden by unreasonably increasing municipal pool and golf fees, especially without the benefit of the recommendations of the independent fee consultant.
CCS: So then is it your opinion that the municipal pool and golf fees should never have been raised?
BD: No, that’s not my position at all.
I agree with the majority of our residents who expect reasonable incremental fee increases at our community pool and our municipal golf course over time.
However, drastic fee increases based on unrealistic financial estimates and faulty reasoning that defies basic economic principles are unwarranted and unwise for anyone to consider, let alone actually put into effect, especially when we didn’t have the benefit of the independent consultant’s fee study results and recommendations to consider at the time.
CCS: OK, thank you for clarifying that. What about the two emergency medical services fee increases this year—did you vote for them?
BD: Yes, I did. On May 3, 2011 in agenda item #8A, council voted unanimously 5-0 to raise the fees on ambulance rides and associated basic life support services to recover partial costs in line with surrounding cities.
CCS: Why did you vote for these two emergency medical service rate increases?
BD: The reasons why I voted for the two emergency medical fee increases are that I thought they were reasonable and legally justifiable.
According to our independent fee consultant, Coronado’s emergency fees were well below the average in our region. Basic life support services associated with Coronado ambulances are provided by skilled paramedics within the Coronado Fire Department.
If we don’t try to partially recover these costs from ambulance users through these two emergency medical service fee increases, then the public must take up the slack and subsidize more of the cost. The public in this case includes Coronado taxpayers because, as the economists say, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”
CCS: Why is the city looking into development fees at this time?
BD: Instead of asking each department to review their fees and report back to council with their recommendations for legally justifiable fee increases to aid their bottom line, our city hired a fee consultant to look into city-wide municipal fees. So this fee study is our starting point for discussion of city-wide fees – minus, of course, the municipal pool and golf fee hikes which were decided before we received and reviewed the independent consultant’s fee report, as I explained earlier.
City-wide fees will be considered over time by council through various agenda items. I encourage interested people to check our council agendas online every other week to see what’s coming up next.
CCS: The fees that will be discussed tonight at the special workshop for those in the building industry are “development-related service fees” sometimes called “development fees” for short, right?
BD: Yes. You’re correct.
CCS: What are “development fees”?
BD: Development fees are those fees that our city should charge for development-related services required to be provided by city staff to those who are making improvements on their property.
Three examples are plan checks, site inspections and fire inspections performed by engineering department staff and fire department staff.
As he explained during our council meeting on June 7th, the fee consultant calculated his recommended development fees by figuring out the actual cost of having staff perform these development-related services. He looked at the city employee’s salary and the amount of time it should take him or her to complete each development-related task. He used sound mathematics to arrive at his recommended fees for every development-related service provided by Coronado city staff.
CCS: How many development fees are there in Coronado?
BD: I’m glad you asked. My recollection is that the fee consultant listed several hundred development fees in his recommendation printed on pages 265 to 297 of the June 7th complete council agenda, available online at www.coronado.ca.us and at our public library in hard copy form.
CCS: What did the fee consultant find about development fees in Coronado?
BD: The fee consultant’s conclusion is alarming. Coronado is alone in our region in overcharging, undercharging and in not charging any fee for development-related city activities required to be carried out by our city staff.
It’s a good thing that we had a professional consultant take a look at our development fees. I think it’s a major problem in our city that we must fix immediately.
The most significant finding of the fee consultant for the purpose of this interview is that Coronado literally is at the bottom of the class when it comes to recovering reasonable costs from builders. In other words, our city has been flunking out of “Development Fee Recovery 101,” while all other cities around us have been sailing through it with flying colors. In Coronado the lion’s share of our development-related fees are either non-existent or too low.
Simply put, developers and builders don’t pay for things in Coronado like they do in every other city in our region. That doesn’t sound fair, does it?
CCS: Can you give us some numbers?
BD: Sure. According to the independent fee consultant at our June 7th council meeting, Coronado residents subsidize 86% of the total development-related services provided by city staff and pay 67% of the total cost of all development-related services provided by our city staff.
CCS: What does that mean in dollars?
BD: According to the independent fee consultant at our June 7 council meeting, our city fails to recover approximately $1.5 million per year in development fees.
CCS: I’m not sure that I heard that correctly. So you’re saying that our city fails to collect about $1.5 million per year for development fees?
BD: Yes, exactly. Coronado fails to collect approximately $1.5 million of development fees every year. That’s what the independent consultant concluded. He was as shocked at his findings as was I. It’s an outrageous state of affairs, no doubt about it.
CCS: I watched the June 7th council meeting online at the city website at www.coronado.ca.us. You were the only person who seemed very concerned about this situation. Unlike you, the mayor and other three council members appeared to be nonchalant about the fee consultant’s conclusions. They paid lip service to the fee consultant’s recommendations while simultaneously ripping apart his recommendations for full cost recovery of development fees. You remained steadfast in defending the recommendations for full cost recovery of development fees. Thank you for your sound financial leadership on city council.
BD: You’re welcome.
It’s a no-brainer decision for all the other elected officials in all the other cities in our region to require full cost recovery of development fees. It should be a no-brainer for all five members of our Coronado council, too.
I spent a lot of my time reviewing the consultant’s development fee recommendations and I was prepared to adopt them right there at our June 7th meeting. The reasons are (1) his recommendations made such good sense, (2) they were legally justifiable, and (3) they would add $1.5 million per year to our city budget.
CCS: As the only elected member of our council who supported the development fee recommendations as submitted by the fee consultant, can you tell us what is meant by “full cost recovery” of development fees?
BD: Certainly. Full cost recovery means that our Coronado taxpayers subsidize nothing because the person receiving and benefitting from the development-related service pays the full cost of that city service. For example, the developer would pay the full cost of plan checks, site inspections and fire inspections, to name three development fees.
I want to point out here that the fee consultant recommended a three-tier fee structure relating to historic resources, which is different from full cost recovery.
CCS: Could you explain that more throughly?
BD: Like those cities with successful historic preservation programs, the consultant recommended that we (1) continue to charge no fee for historic designation to encourage it, (2) charge partial-recovery fees for services related to historic preservation of our resource inventory, and (3) charge full-recovery fees related to demolition of historic resources.
I agree with him because his historic resource fee recommendations are legally justifiable and reasonable. I like the fee consultant’s recommendations on costs related to historic designation and preservation because together they are a public good. I have always held the unwavering opinion that a key way to save our unique island atmosphere is to save our historic treasures.
I would like Coronado to emulate this three-tier fee structure charged by cities with successful historic resource programs. There is concrete, economic evidence that a successful historic preservation program will help keep our property values high and help boost our island economy through heritage tourism.
CCS: What does the current development fee structure mean for Coronado?
BD: It means that our approximately 25,000 residents and taxpayers subsidize a comparatively tiny number of individuals who voluntarily choose to build, develop and enhance their property in Coronado.
This means that in Coronado, the building and development industry receives special treatment. You could reasonably say that builders receive a special form of welfare from Coronado taxpayers because builders in our city effectively receive a special handout of public funds that they don’t receive from the taxpayers of any other city.
In other words our local government has set up a surreal situation where, in essence, Coronado city takes money from our tens of thousands of taxpayers and hands it over to that comparatively tiny number of individuals who choose to develop property in Coronado by giving them development-related services for free or for a lower rate than other cities charge for the same development-related services.
The bottom line is that it’s a waste of public resources and it’s fundamentally unfair to make Coronado residents shoulder this huge burden. Furthermore, it’s an insult to all Coronado residents to force them to subsidize a comparatively tiny number of developers and builders who choose to turn a profit on speculation building or who choose to enhance the value of their property here in Coronado.
In my opinion, it’s long past time to shift the burden of paying development fees to those who voluntarily choose to develop property in Coronado.
The burden of development fees should never fall on our Coronado taxpayers. No other city except Coronado expects their residents to shoulder this huge burden, which in Coronado is approximately $1.5 million per year.
CCS: How does that make you feel?
BD: I feel a sense of outrage both for Coronado taxpayers in my role as an elected city councilwoman and as an individual Coronado taxpayer myself.
According to the independent fee consultant, our city has forced Coronado taxpayers to subsidize developers at a rate of about $1.5 million per year, all the while rubber-stamping what many in Coronado tell me they consider to be bad development plans, including the tearing down or impermissible altering of historic homes thus eroding our unique village atmosphere.
In this way, many people say that our city officials are actively and intentionally destroying our unique island atmosphere while simultaneously putting our quality of life and property values at risk.
I agree because that certainly appears to be the big picture of what’s going on in our town from my vantage point.
As you know, during my two years serving the public on city council, I have been the sole dissenting vote in a few 4-1 council decisions relating to development and to historic preservation in Coronado.
CCS: Who is responsible for this current inequitable situation of the $1.5 million annual development fee subsidy?
BD: In our municipal form of government, the elected officials are responsible. The buck stops with your five city council members. There is simply no denying this basic truth.
Anytime one of your elected officials tries to blame someone else for what is going on in our town, they are trying to con you. Voters in Coronado entrusted their mayor and four council members with the power to make decisions in the best interests of the people.
If your elected officials, including myself, fail to exercise their power for the good of the people, then it’s their own fault. Sophomoric finger pointing and blame-shifting has no place in our city government, just as they have no place in any other level of our democratic form of government.
CCS: I know that you are in constant communication with the Coronado community. What are Coronado residents saying to you about their forced annual subsidy of approximately $1.5 million in development fees?
BD: They are outraged. Since the council meeting on June 7th, when the fee consultant formally revealed the $1.5 million annual taxpayer subsidy to developers and builders, I have been approached by a multitude of Coronado residents.
In addition, I enjoy walking door-to-door throughout our island and holding monthly SPEAK OUT CORONADO community meetings in our library. I’m very active in the leadership and membership of several community groups, too.
I’m very open about asking residents how they feel about Coronado issues because I like to keep my finger on the pulse of our island community.
There is not a single resident who told me they are eager to continue annually subsidizing $1.5 million of development fees in Coronado. Our residents feel unfairly burdened, and rightly so. They want to see reflected in our budget the additional $1.5 million revenue that proper development fee collection would bring in to our city every year.
I agree with Coronado residents wholeheartedly. Who in their right mind wouldn’t want to see our city capture that $1.5 million annual revenue from development fees?
CCS: Obviously the developers . . . and then apparently the mayor and the three other council members as shown by their voting record.
BD: Well, it’s a bad economy for everyone, even developers. So we can cut the builders some slack.
CCS: Do you mean that developers and builders shouldn’t have to pay development fees in Coronado?
BD: No, not at all. All developers should pay their fair share. Builders should not receive a $1.5 million annual subsidy from Coronado taxpayers.
I’m not beholden to special interest groups, including builders and developers. At the same time, I don’t demonize developers or any other special interest group because I don’t find it productive to do so.
CCS: I see what you mean. What about the individual Coronado resident who wants to put a legal addition onto his house? Should he pay development fees just like the big developers who build McMansions, four-condos-on-one-lot and those big affordable housing projects scattered all around our town?
BD: Yes, everyone should pay his fair share of development fees without exception.
The reason is threefold: First, it’s the norm in cities all over our region for individuals to pay for the development-related services they receive from municipal governments. Therefore, no one should be exempted from paying his fair share of development fees in Coronado.
Second, the individual homeowner recovers several times over the amount of his outlay of development fees because his property value increases, thus giving him a positive financial impact.
Third, it’s unfair to expect the approximately 25,000 other residents to carry the burden of the development fees for the individual who builds an addition onto his house because those 25,000 residents do not receive a similar increase in their property values as a result of the individual homeowner’s addition to his individual property.
Let me put it this way. I consider myself to be an average homeowner in Coronado. If I were ever to be in the shoes of the homeowner in the example you gave, where I wanted to build an addition onto my house, then I would never, ever expect others to pay my development fees while I reap a personal financial gain through the increase in my individual property value. I would never expect such a free ride from local taxpayers, who include my neighbors and friends, in order to achieve my own personal enrichment.
For the record, I am not contemplating an addition to my house.
CCS: Is there anything else you would like to add?
BD: Yes, thank you. The fact that we are caught in the middle of a statewide crisis in redevelopment, which has been well publicized in the media, makes full cost recovery of development fees all the more critical for our town. Arguably, this redevelopment crisis is the defining municipal issue of the decade.
Even though I am confident that we ultimately will prevail in court against the governor’s plan to eradicate redevelopment, we still have a lot at stake in Coronado.
For those that may not know, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities (the League) are the two non-profit lobbying and educational groups to which our city belongs. The CRA and the League have begun and will continue to spearhead a litigation strategy to overturn the governor’s plan to eradicate redevelopment in California. In the end, I think we will prevail against the governor’s plan and redevelopment will be saved, but not until after a significant amount of resources have been expended.
The worst-case scenario is that we can’t afford to make the multiple million dollars worth of payments, both up front and over time, to continue operating our local redevelopment agency, which we call the Coronado Community Development Agency, or CDA.
In that worst-case scenario, the long overdue renovations to our Senior Center might be at risk. They are not definitely at risk in the worst-case scenario, but they might be at risk.
Therefore, in my opinion, with the additional $1.5 million per year of proper development fee collection, we could legally find the funding in our budget to pay for the long overdue Senior Center renovations, regardless of redevelopment concerns.
Properly collecting the legally defensible and reasonable $1.5 million annual development fees opens up new opportunities for us that we don’t have now because the taxpayers are forced to subsidize development fees in Coronado in this current, unfair situation.
CCS: How does this unfair situation of taxpayers annually subsidizing $1.5 million of development fees relate to Proposition J?
BD: Sadly, it pours salt into the wounds of our community members, the majority of whom are still hurting from the two black eyes the city gave them on Prop J.
Forgive my double metaphor while I make an important point. Not too long ago, around 2006, Coronado residents suffered a very public beating over Prop J from their elected city council members because we made national news since it was so unusual for a group of five elected government officials to form a unanimous bloc and fight so hard against the very people whose best interests they are supposed to protect.
The first black eye occurred before Prop J went to a vote when city council voted to spend taxpayer’s money on litigation to try to keep Prop J off of the ballot in order to take the voting power away from the people. Council wasted a lot of public funds on those legal fees and costs and lost that battle to the surprise of no one. It was an obvious waste of taxpayers’ money on a legal battle that the city council was sure to lose against the residents.
The second black eye the city gave Coronado residents occurred after Prop J passed by a majority of voters, when city council then authorized the city attorney to try to overturn the proposition on a technicality. This surprised nearly everyone and made national news because it was so unusual for a city government to overturn the will of its people as expressed in the passing of Prop J. It was unheard of in the U.S.A.
One of the untruths I have banished from the dais in council chambers, but I still hear around town now and again, though the frequency is dwindling, is that Prop J was “illegal,” meaning that Coronado voters cannot use a ballot proposition to force city council to listen to the people and to stop the over-densification of our island.
Make no mistake: Prop J was a legal proposition. It was a valid, legal tool available to Coronado residents as a last resort against a rogue council. In this case, Prop J intended to stop the local development practice of tearing down one house and building two houses in its place on one lot in one particular zone.
Unfortunately, Prop J omitted some of what we attorneys call the requisite “magic language.” In the ballot language Prop J was meant to, but didn’t, include the required six words “ . . . this hereby amends the General Plan.”
CCS: That was a sad day in Coronado’s history.
BD: Yes, you are correct. It was very sad, although the people did an outstanding job with Prop J. The aftermath was ugly and it still hurts and offends residents of our island.
So from our residents’ perspective, the over-densification of our island against the expressed will of the majority of the people through Prop J is bad enough.
To make the people pay for all of the legal fees and costs associated with council’s failed attempt to keep Prop J off the ballot (first black eye) and with council’s successful attempt to overturn Prop J on a technicality (second black eye) clearly adds insult to injury.
Now, for our residents to learn on June 7, 2011 from the independent fee consultant that they have been subsidizing approximately $1.5 million per year of development fees is rubbing some serious salt into the residents’ wounds.
This situation is really so far beyond the pale as to be surreal. That is why there is public outrage among those that are aware of the $1.5 million annual taxpayer subsidy of development fees in Coronado.
CCS: Do you think that council decisions made on one issue affect other issues sometimes?
BD: Yes. You’re correct. The reality of government decision interconnectedness that you just mentioned is the antithesis of the usual bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, that traditional double-speak, which seeks to artificially isolate government actions and decisions in order to provide cover for politicians who aim to deny accountability for their very own actions and decisions. But reasonable people see through the mumbo-jumbo and they know that government decisions have a high rate of interconnectedness, or interrelatedness, if you will.
So, for example, in our town a reasonable person might draw some degree of relation or connection between (a) the city’s failure to collect $1.5 million annually in development fees thus overburdening our taxpayers by forcing them to subsidize what many people feel is the over-densification of our town, and (b) council’s hurried and drastic 4-1 decisions, with myself dissenting, to hike up the municipal pool and golf fees claiming that the actions were necessary because the pool and golf course were “losing money.”
That’s why residents ask me versions of the same question: “If council had been properly collecting approximately $1.5 million of annual development fees over the years, would there have been the same aggressive rush to raise the golf and pool fees so drastically to the extreme detriment of our residents?”
I think that’s a very good question based on logically sound observations of the workings of city hall. Indeed, in my experience our council decisions are interrelated and interconnected.
Intentionally failing to recover costs in an area that is never subsidized by the public in other cities, such as development-related activity, means the city has less revenue to spend other areas including, but not limited to, areas that are traditionally partially-subsidized by the public in other cities, such as municipal swimming pools or municipal golf courses.
Finally, every decision of council carries with it an opportunity cost. Economists like to say “there is no such thing as a free lunch” and they are correct.
CCS: Are you a member of a political party?
BD: No, I’m not a member of any political party. I have good friends in both parties and I admire their work and share many of their opinions.
Still, I am the only Non-Partisan elected official on Coronado city council. Also, according to the people who track such things, I am the only woman elected anywhere in San Diego County that is Non-Partisan.
CCS: Then you are an Independent?
BD: No, that’s a political party, too, the Independent Party. I am Non-Partisan. I’m not in any political party. I’m an independent Coronado city council member, as in the adjective “independent” spelled with a lower-case “i.”
CCS: During your successful re-election campaign in 2010, did you take campaign donations from individuals or groups associated with the development and building industry?
BD: No, I did not accept any funds from builders or developers or those associated with them. Then again, I don’t recall any builders, developers or their associates ever offering to make donations toward my re-election. [Chuckle.] I self-funded my 2010 re-election campaign. This means that I graciously refused all campaign donations. I am not beholden to any special interests.
CCS: Thank you Barbara for your time and for a very informative interview.
BD: You’re welcome. I appreciate how well Coronado Common Sense keeps our residents informed. Keep up the good work.
To see the council discussions that Councilwoman Barbara Denny referred to above, go to www.coronado.ca.us. At the bottom right of the home page, click on “Council . . . Live Video Stream and Archive.” On the next page, scroll down to the date(s) of the council meetings in which you are interested. Click on the agenda item(s) you want to view.
Topic # 1: Hold Special Workshop for Building Industry on Development Fees
Council Meeting Date: June 7, 2011
Agenda Item: 11 C
Council Vote: 4-1 with Councilwoman Barbara Denny dissenting
Topic # 2: Institute a “Cooperative Pool Model” for the Municipal and the School Pools
Council Meeting Date: November 3, 2009
Agenda Item: 5 H
Council Vote: 4-1 with Councilwoman Barbara Denny dissenting
Topic # 3: Municipal Pool Fee Hike
Council Meeting Date: March 16, 2010
Agenda Item: 8 A
Council Vote: 4-1 with Councilwoman Barbara Denny dissenting
Topic # 4: Golf Fee Hike/Elimination of Annual Golf Pass
Council Meeting Date: September 1, 2009
Agenda Item: 11 D
Council Vote: 4-1 with Councilwoman Barbara Denny dissenting
Topic # 5: Two Emergency Medical Service Fee Hikes
Council Meeting Date: May 3, 2011
Agenda Item: 8 A
Council Vote: Unanimous 5-0
Recent Comments