On Tuesday, March 24, the public can weigh in before the Planning & Zoning Commission on the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program budget. The meeting begins at 5 p.m. in the Plaza Level Conference Room at 260 Constitution Plaza.
CIP Descriptions 2015-2016 3 19 15
Thom
Kerri: The question to ask is why and when did P&Z become involved in budget issues? Is the Council, and/or the mayor, purposefully avoiding normally and per ordinance required votes at Council which they believe they may not have for more spending on non-essential matters? Just a month or so ago when P&Z had their hearing on the relocation of Gold Street, the P&Z Chairwoman claimed the Commission’s jurisdiction did not include how things would be paid for or not, and now they are holding hearings on the CIP budget? What changed?
Kerri Provost
Nothing has changed. These are two separate matters.
The city’s charter actually says that the P&Z has a role: “Duties in relation to capital budget. The commission shall prepare and revise annually a program of public improvements for the ensuing five (5) years and shall submit annually to the mayor, at such time as the mayor shall direct, its recommendations of such projects to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in the full five-year period.”
The role of P&Z is to review the budget for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Its job is not to weigh in on the budget amounts.
On Tuesday night, three of the commissioners voted for a favorable recommendation to the Mayor. Commissioner Marcroft and the Chair both abstained without prejudice due to lack of information.
Josh LaPorte
Kerri, this explanation is very helpful. I was confused about the budget being given a hearing at P&Z.
Thom
I apologize my previous comment did not clearly elicit my concern. I am of the opinion the intent of the Charter is not being fulfilled by what apparently occurred, and that P&Z’s role is not to review the budget for consistency, but rather to review and rank proposed programs which would then perhaps be funded in an ensuing budget by the Council and Mayor. Having P&Z review the budget, versus them recommend programs to later perhaps become part of the budget, seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. I say this because the charter states the duties of P&Z are “in relation to” the budget, and that “the commission shall prepare a program of public improvements” whereby it then “submits its recommendations of such projects“ to the Mayor. It says nothing of P&Z having dollar amounts attached to its recommendations nor that it shall consider any dollar amounts in its deliberations as to what improvements it ultimately recommends. The dollars are the purview of the Council and the recommended programs are the purview of P&Z, as P&Z has clearly stated. If the Commissioners were merely given the proposed budget to review by staff, which it appears was done, their job was wrongfully obfuscated by attaching the mayor’s proposed dollar amounts to the programs they were to prioritize. This could only add partiality and bias to an otherwise objective decisionmaking process based on the commissioners’ defined function with planning and zoning matters, not financial matters.
I am obviously concerned that “programs” given to them to allegedly prioritize, such as “streetscapes, street lighting, traffic calming, etc.”, are hardly programs they can appropriately review. I applaud Commissioners Marcroft and Bronin for rightfully abstaining, apparently because they were not given proper documentation on the “programs” upon which to deliberate.