The Richardson City Council conducted its annual budget workshop. Yesterday, I reported on Day 1's peculiar focus on one $5,000 budget expense ("Council Recap: Debating a Rounding Error"). Here I want to cover Day 2, specifically what happened to any leftover questions regarding that one item. This time, roughly 18–20 minutes was devoted to this topic. Spoiler: there was a surprise ending! The mills of government grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.
City Manager Don Magner began Day 2 with the slide above, titled "Strategy: Work to increase public engagement and input." The options for different scenarios for the State of the City presentation are priced. Confusingly, the detailed scenarios no longer show the simple "Venue Change to Hill Hall ($5K)" discussed on Day 1 that triggered all this in the first place. That amount was explained as the increase in production costs alone if the event is moved to the Hill Performance Hall. The total cost of just continuing to hold the event in the Bank of America Theater is estimated at $27,000. Remember that number. That's the cost if we just continue business as usual and presumably it's the default placeholder in next year's budget.
The second line suggests that if the event is moved to Hill Performance Hall and attendance increases from 400 to 600, the total cost goes up from $27,000 to $37,500. The production costs increase by $3,500 and Food and Beverage by $5,500, which totals only $9,000. Yet the slide shows the total increasing by $10,500. Either there's another $1,500 cost not identified on the slide, or the arithmetic deserves another look. The Council is looking closely at these numbers. They ought to add up.
Council member Curtis Dorian opposed moving the event this year, although he supported the idea in the future. "...we still have room to grow for at least another year, and possibly two..." How does he arrive at that conclusion? I could just as easily imagine an increased promotion effort could get 1,000 attendees. But there's little point in even thinking about doing that if the event is stuck in the Bank of America Theater.
Council member Jennifer Justice opposed moving the event for the same reason: "I feel like we're trying to create a solution to a problem we don't have." What if the "problem" is that we're not doing enough to engage the community? If the real problem is insufficient community engagement, shouldn't the Council be asking how to solve that problem? If it succeeds, the need for a larger venue naturally follows.
Mayor Pro Tem Hutchenrider looked for a compromise. Finding none, he remained opposed to moving the event.
Council member Dan Barrios did not add new reasoning of his own. Instead, he simply endorsed Justice's position: "I agree with Council member Justice and her take on the State of the City."
Council member Arefin remained open to a larger venue but preferred to let staff manage attendance and logistics. That doesn't address whether the Council should budget for the option in the first place, and if so, how much. There's no point in staff trying to increase attendance if council says there's no budget to move to a bigger venue.
Council member Joe Corcoran stated he was comfortable budgeting enough money to preserve the option: "...I don't have an issue with increasing that line item for the State of the City...with the understanding that we may not spend it... But I do think the flexibility would be nice to have."
Mayor Amir Omar remained the strongest advocate for moving the event. He said demand for tickets last year exceeded capacity before the ice storm changed people's plans. He suggested reducing Food and Beverage expenses if necessary to afford the bigger venue. "I would trade a lovely dinner...so 600 more people can show up and actually learn all the great things that are going on in our city." He emphasized that the budget item was intended only as a placeholder for a future policy discussion.
When all the council members seemed to have made their points, Mayor Omar moved to close the discussion with this summary of the consensus of the Council: "Unless anyone wants to do away with the State of the City, which I did not hear that, $27,000 will be held in the budget, and then we can make whatever decision we want to around that $27,000."
Before he could move on to the next agenda item, Council member Arefin spoke up: "I would propose not 27. I would propose putting $35,000 for the budget's sake, and then you know, move in the future, see how it works."
Mayor Omar: "Are there any objections to $35,000 as a placeholder for this particular item? There are not. All right, we can move on. Thank you."
I told you there was going to be a twist to the story at the end. Ironically, after roughly twenty minutes debating whether to budget an additional $5,000 to preserve the option of moving to Hill Performance Hall, just when Mayor Omar appeared ready to settle on the business-as-usual $27,000 placeholder, Council member Arefin proposed increasing the placeholder to $35,000. No one objected. If someone can make it all make sense, I'd genuinely like to hear the explanation. I certainly can't.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Public engagement—
Written neatly on the slide.
Not engaged in talk."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment