CCTB Board – Clarification and Additional Information
Earlier this week I wrote a post about the CCTB board’s decision to increase its voting membership as a tactic to evade public oversight. Carbondale city council member Chris Wissmann, who is also a city-appointed CCTB board member wrote in with some additional information. With his permission, I’m quoting him below:
Technically, before Monday, the board consisted of seventeen members, but two – Mayor Fritzler and Karl Maple from Jerry Costello’s office – are non-voting members. In a practical sense, the board had fifteen voting members.
The board will technically now have thirty-one members, the same two of whom (the Mayor and Jerry Costello’s representative) are non-voting, driving up the voting members of the board to twenty-nine.
I attended the meeting and didn’t support the expansion. Among other points, I stated to the Tourism Board that the city provides more than seventy percent of the Tourism Bureau’s revenue, and this measure will reduce our appointees to the Tourism Bureau’s board to about thirty percent. The only other board member to oppose the expansion was the Jackson County Board’s representative, Ed Benyas.
I may address this further at the Tuesday, April 3 city-council meeting.
I want to thank Mr. Wissmann for writing in with the information. I also would like to thank Mr. Wissmann and Mr. Benyas for voting against the board expansion. I hope Wissmann and the rest of the council can find a way to bring the CCTB under the control of the public, which provides its funds.
Comments are welcome.
A Word About CCTB
I have been following Geoffrey Ritter’s excellent series on the Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau (CCTB) in the Carbondale Times over the last couple of months. A few weeks ago, I wrote summaries of the two city council meetings concerning CCTB funding (one, two), and I briefly mentioned that I supported Mayor Fritzler’s plan to cut the agency’s funds.
Other than that, I’ve avoided commenting on the CCTB scandal – mainly because it hasn’t seemed necessary. Ritter was exposing CCTB Executive Director Debbie Moore’s questionable moves and the council was taking action to cut the agency’s funding and replace more than half of its board of directors.
When I read Ritter’s article in this week’s Times, I became furious. It isn’t online yet, so if you want to read it you’ll have to pick up a paper copy of the Times. I’ll give you a very brief summary.
Mayor Fritzler was planning to replace all eight of the CCTB board members appointed by the city. The eight members made up a majority of the fifteen person board. The new members would presumably be in a position to exercise some oversight over CCTB and possibly replace its director. So, anticipating the change in membership, the CCTB board voted this week to increase the size of the board, which has the effect of reducing the proportion of board members appointed by the city. To make matters worse, CCTB appointed seven of the eight members Fritzler was planning to replace to the newly created seats.
When I read that, I was shocked and infuriated. The arrogance of this move is breathtaking. It is a transparent attempt to evade city oversight and control of CCTB’s activities, despite the fact that the city of Carbondale provides more than 80% of CCTB’s funding. This cannot be allowed to stand.
The Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau is almost entirely funded by tax dollars that belong to the people of Carbondale. We give the organization tax money that could be used to fund other priorities. If public money is funding an organization, the public has a right to hold that organization accountable. Attempts to evade public oversight are unacceptable.
In this week’s article, Ritter writes that Mayor Fritzler “said he may present for a vote a proposal first presented by Wissmann in February that would make city representation on boards and commissions to which it gives money proportional to the amount of money given.” I was skeptical of that idea when Wissmann proposed it, but it’s obvious now that it is necessary. Fritzler should propose it, and council should support it.
Until such a policy can be put in place, council should direct staff to zero out the city’s contribution to CCTB. That organization should not receive another penny of tax revenue until it can be brought under control. That means more than a change in the composition of the board. That also means a change in staff. At the very least, the executive director should be replaced. Until these changes happen, the city should refuse to fund CCTB.
This change will require leadership. This is an opportunity for Fritzler to prove he’s up to the job of mayor. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to see that our tax dollars are spent wisely. Allowing CCTB to evade oversight is not an option. Council must act to stop the abuses at CCTB.
I’ll link Ritter’s past Carbondale Times articles below. I especially recommend the last two articles.
Comments are welcome.
CCTB Could See Dramatic Funding Cuts from Carbondale, Jackson County
Mayor’s CCTB Proposal Draws Various Reactions
Council Cuts $50,000 from CCTB Budget
City Council Meeting 03/20/2012
I watched last night’s city council meeting from home on Mediacom channel 16. For the second meeting in a row, the agenda was short. Council approved the consent agenda unanimously before moving on to the general business agenda.
The first item (pdf) on the general business agenda was a special use permit to allow the construction of residential structures as permitted in an R-3 district in a secondary business district. The request concerns property located at 2251 S. Illinois Ave. Council approved the special use unanimously after council member Lance Jack proposed an amendment changing the layout of the buildings.
The next item (pdf), a request to rezone property at 7035 Old Highway 13 from AG (general agriculture) to PUD (planned unit development) was the thorniest item on the agenda. Council decided to table this item until the property can be surveyed. On page 2 of the staff memo (page 21 on the link above), you can read the zoning history of the property. I’ll briefly summarize.
When the current zoning ordinance was adopted in 1974, there were seven mobile homes and two houses on the property. The zoning ordinance classified the property as AG, and only one residential structure is permitted per lot in an AG district. Eight of the nine structures on the property in 1974 were considered legal non-conforming uses.
When the mobile homes on the property were reaching the end of their useful lives, the previous owner (who is now deceased) decided to build permanent structures to replace them. The zoning ordinance wouldn’t have allowed that and instead of seeking a rezoning, the owner began constructions with no permit from the city. The city soon learned that construction had started and issued a stop work order. This was in December of 1995.
In July of 1997, the city issued a permit allowing the property owner to complete construction of the buildings, but only for use as storage and with the condition that the buildings not be used for residential purposes. In December 1997, city staff inspected the buildings and learned they were being built as residences. The city issued another stop work order.
In May 2003, the city sent a letter to the previous owner stating that staff had observed continued construction and reminding the owner that the structures were not allowed to be used as residential structures. The previous owner requested rezoning to PUD in October 2003 but withdrew the request before council acted on it.
The current owner inherited the property from the previous owner and now wants to rezone it. In general, council would be unlikely to rezone a development that had already been built without permits and in defiance of the zoning ordinance. That kind of development is a challenge to the authority of the city. But in this case, the previous owner has died and it seems a little unfair to hold his heirs responsible for his mistakes.
If the history of the property was the only problem, I suspect council would have rezoned the property. But there is another potential problem. The setback requirements for residences are larger than the setback requirements for storage buildings and it’s not clear that the buildings on the property meet the setback requirements. If the buildings do not meet the setback requirements, they still couldn’t be used as residences even if council rezones the lot.
Since council didn’t have solid information on whether the structures meet the setback requirements, no action was taken on this item. The current property owner will have the land surveyed and city staff will measure the setbacks. Then the issue will come back to council.
The final two items on the general business agenda, one authorizing the mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Comptroller and the other one choosing a health insurance provider for city employees, passed unanimously. Citizen comments and council comments were brief and the closed session was cancelled.
Comments are welcome.
City Council Meeting – 03/06/2011
The Carbondale City Council met on Tuesday, March 6, 2011 at the city hall/civic center. I watched from home on Mediacom channel 16. This was an unusually short meeting with only one item on the general business agenda. The council approved that item, the final PUD for the Parkview Apartments at 905 E. Park, unanimously. Council also approved the consent agenda unanimously.
During citizen’s comments, one resident asked whether and when the city plans to shut down the Oakland Avenue Auto Repair shop operating at Oakland and Sycamore. The shop was mistakenly given a permit to operate last year. Carbondale’s zoning does not permit an auto repair shop in an R-1 district. Mayor Fritzler said the city is working with the property owner and the business owner to find a new location for the shop.
My views on our restrictive zoning are well known to regular readers, so I see no reason to comment on this issue.
After brief council comments, the council adjourned into closed session at 7:36 p.m. – almost certainly a record for this council. According to council member Jane Adams’ blog, council had no plans to discuss anything controversial in closed session.
Comments are welcome.
City Council Meets Tonight
The Carbondale City Council meets tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the city hall/civic center. There is only one item on the general business agenda – approval of the final PUD for phase IV of the Parkview Apartments at 905 East Park St. To view the entire agenda, click here.
I’ll be watching from home on Mediacom channel 16.
Comments are welcome.
Armory Update Part 2.5
In yesterday’s post about the possible developments at the old National Guard Armory at Oakland and Sycamore, I noted that almost any use would require rezoning the property – likely to PUD (planned unit development). I expressed some concern that even zoning the Armory PUD wouldn’t permit a wide enough range of uses.
A reader with knowledge of the city code wrote in to suggest that BPL (planned business district) might be a more appropriate option. I took a look at the code and I agree. BPL would allow all the uses Wallace is considering for the property and would also allow residential use permitted in R-3 districts. Click here to take a look at the BPL ordinance and see for yourself.
Thanks to the reader who suggested BPL as an option!
Comments are welcome.
Armory Update Part 2
In my last post on the bidding process on the old National Guard Armory at Oakland and Sycamore, I didn’t have any solid information on the plans the top bidder, Andy Wallace of Alpha Rentals, has for the property. Since then, he and I have corresponded via email and, with his permission, I’m posting some of his ideas.
Wallace has several ideas, which I list below. In some instances I’m using Wallace’s language, in others I’m paraphrasing. Wallace’s ideas for possible uses are:
- North Maintenance Shop – This could house an old car club (middle aged gentlemen who own and restore old cars), two radio controlled car clubs (both clubs use electric cars, which produce very little noise and draw very few spectators), a slot car club and track, and a small hobby shop to support these clubs. The shop would most likely be open 6-9 p.m. four nights per week. The club schedules would usually include one evening per week and activity on the weekends. The clubs are interested in a move to a central location in Carbondale.
- South Maintenance Shop – In the short term, this could be used for storage for old cars (for the old car club) and possibly for motor home storage in the winter. In the future, the building would likely be converted to loft apartments. These would be R-1 apartments allowing no more than two unrelated people per apartment, which is how the property is currently zoned.
- South Parking Lot – This would be left as-is to provide parking for the main building.
- Main Building – The building is large enough to include several uses. I’ll break them into separate bullets starting with offices for Alpha Rentals. This includes space for 2-4 full time employees and would be open from 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. During the busiest time for rentals, July 15-August 25, Alpha staff works 12-14 hour days and can be in and out seven days per week. These office hours are unchanged.
- Main Building – One resident-manager apartment. The resident-manager needs to be on site to take care of community rentals of the gym space.
- Main Building – One additional apartment to help cover overhead (property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and a hefty energy bill).
- Main Building – 4-6 office spaces available for rent.
- Main Building – Rental of the main gym space for events. The space would be offered a special rate to a supporting neighborhood association, which Wallace hopes would use the space. This would allow the gym to be used as it has been for the last forty years – as a banquet hall, venue for sporting events, and stage. This use will require a large investment in the kitchen facilities because the National Guard will strip it.
- Main Building – Licensed massage therapist. This person has a full-time job and would like to operate one or two nights per week, likely from 6:00-9:00 p.m., and mostly on weekends.
- Main Building – Possible small coffee and sandwich shop, although Wallace isn’t sure that use would be viable considering nearby competition.
- Main Building – Alpha has several tenants who are veterans and would like a more modern serviceman’s club, but this use likely wouldn’t work without a liquor license.
Wallace also mentioned that he plans to contact several other small community clubs and groups if it becomes clear that he will be the purchaser and offer them space. He also has a few other ideas that he hasn’t fully fleshed out yet, but are along the same lines.
Looking at this list of ideas, this strikes me as a really good mix of uses for the Armory. If the bidding process ends with Wallace as the purchaser, the Armory would include small scale retail, commercial office, non-profit, and residential uses. It would include space for hobbyists (something Carbondale mostly lacks) and the hobby shop would generate sales tax for the city. As reader PtG points out in a comment on the last post, it would bring the Armory property onto the tax rolls. I see this mix of uses as a major benefit for Carbondale.
I’ve argued in the past that the worst possible outcome isn’t that the Armory is used for something we don’t like. The worst possible outcome is that citizen opposition or our outdated zoning code makes it impossible to use the Armory for anything, which would lead to it deteriorating and eventually being torn down. If we want to preserve our old buildings, we have to make it possible to use them. This means flexibility. It means an openness to change. It means having a little faith in people instead of always expecting the worst.
It also means confronting the issue of zoning. Most of the Armory property is in an R-1 district (I think it’s R-1-8, which is a single-family residential district with minimum 8,000 square foot lots) and our code does not allow these uses in that district. The remaining part of the Armory property is zoned R-3, which is a bit more permissive but which – as I read the code – still wouldn’t allow these uses. The only way to save this building is to allow it to be used. That’s going to require a change.
The most likely solution would be a rezoning – probably to PUD (planned unit development). Rezoning the property to PUD would allow at least some of the uses Wallace has in mind, depending on how you read the PUD ordinance. It isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s probably the best one available under our outdated zoning code.
I’m more concerned with ends than means. If PUD is the means to the end of allowing the property to be used, then I’ll support it. But in the long run, we need to take a serious look at changing our code to allow and even encourage mixed uses.
Incidentally, I’m not sure PUD would be available for this property. The PUD ordinance is fairly complicated. For example, it requires minimum setbacks (“yards”) of 20 feet on all sides of the property. Does the Armory conform to that requirement? We won’t know until and unless someone tries to rezone it. Take a look at the ordinance (click here) and see if you think PUD would be a solution.
Comments are welcome.
City Council Meets Tonight
The Carbondale City Council (and Liquor Control Commission) meets tonight at the city hall/civic center at 7:00 p.m. The agenda is available by clicking here. The main items on the liquor control commission agenda are consideration of a beer garden permit for Sports Blast and transfer of a liquor license for Newell House. The main item on the city council agenda is further consideration of the plan to cut funding for the Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau. It could turn out to be a long meeting despite the short agenda.
One other item of note – council will hold a closed meeting to discuss personnel matters. If a council decides to act on its discussion, action would be taken in an open meeting.
I’ll be watching from home on Mediacom channel 16.
Comments are welcome.
City Council Meeting 02/07/2012
I watched last night’s city council meeting from home on Mediacom’s channel 16. As expected, council approved TIF funds for Coleman Rentals, approved the labor agreements with the police unions, and approved the chicken ordinance. And, as expected, the discussion of community and economic development organization funding consumed most of the meeting.
Most of the time spent on community and economic development organization funding was devoted to the mayor’s proposal to cut $120,000 from the Carbondale Convention and Tourism Bureau’s budget and distribute that money to other organizations. CCTB executive director Debbie Moore delivered a 30 minute summary of the agency’s activities and former SIUC chancellor Sam Goldman delivered a speech opposing cuts to the CCTB.
After other organizations seeking funding gave their remarks, council returned to the CCTB issue. Council member Jane Adams asked a number of questions of CCTB executive director Debbie Moore. Adams’ questions were aimed at CCTB’s budget process, performance of its duties, and use of staff time. Mayor Fritzler cut Adams’ time short before she was able to finish asking her questions.
Council member Corene McDaniel delivered a fiery defense of CCTB and indictment of Fritzler’s plan. McDaniel pointed to the assortment of agencies Fritzler proposes funding with the money cut from CCTB and noted that Attucks Community Services, which provides services mostly to African-American children on the city’s northeast side, is not included.
Council member Lance Jack shared his concern that the city is moving too quickly to reallocate funds that have gone to CCTB in the past. Jack said he was open to reallocating the funds but wanted to be sure that whatever projects would receive the redistributed money are able to spend the money intelligently. A tense exchange with Fritzler followed.
Council member Don Monty echoed some of the concerns raised by Jack and McDaniel and added that he is concerned that city funding for some organizations might discourage people from volunteering with those organizations. Monty said that the funding levels proposed for some beneficiaries of the CCTB cut are too low to make much difference to those organizations – offering the Buckminster Fuller Dome and the Park District pool as examples.
Council member Lee Fronabarger pointed to a communications gap with CCTB and said he never knew how CCTB spent its money until he began studying the issue recently. He also said he’s heard complaints about CCTB’s performance of its duties – specifically that CCTB has been unresponsive to requests for help in organizing festivals.
Several community members spoke on the CCTB issue, some in favor of cutting funds from CCTB and some opposed. Council decided to continue the discussion of CCTB funding to the next meeting and to hold funding for all other organizations steady.
I’m going to withhold comment on the substance of this, but I will tell you that I’d vote to cut the funds from CCTB this year and every year until major changes were made to CCTB. To see what Fritzler proposes funding with $120,000 cut from CCTB, click here.
Comments are welcome.
