notmymayor

Carondelet Family YMCA, Loughborough Avenue, August 2009

11th Ward Alderman Matt Villa is not my favorite member of the Board of Aldermen for any number of reasons, including the following:

1. He cosponsored a bill to eliminate the earnings tax for high income business executives.
2. He cosponsored a bill to eliminate the amusement tax on Cardinals tickets (Ordinance 65669).
3. He cosponsored a bill to increase the sales tax to construct new recreation centers, including the one that this post will critique.

Now, there is nothing particularly wrong about cutting taxes on the rich and raising additional revenues through a regressive means if you share the worldview of most Republicans. If you happen to be Alderman Villa or one of his colleagues on the Board of Aldermen (with the exception of Fred Heitert), however, your decision to seek elective office on the Democratic Party ticket creates cognitive dissonance for progressives when you ultimately choose to legislate right-wing, trickle-down economic policy.

"Renewing America's Promise," The Democratic Party Platform, 2008

But I digress. The purpose of this post is not to expose the hypocrisy of our local “Democrats” nor is it to dispute the contention that private contracting, or the deployment of public resources to benefit a private business interest, serves the public interest. Rather, this post seeks to transcend narrow ideological divides by asking a basic question about transparency and good governance: Do Lewis Reed and the 28 members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen even care about competitive bidding?

The story of the Carondelet Park Recreation Center will elucidate the sad reality that no one presently in elective office at the local level in St. Louis City cares enough about protecting public resources to ensure that local taxpayers get the best deal in private contractual agreements.

Here is a view of the infamous money pit, as it slowly takes shape on the site of a former soccer field in the northeast corner of Carondelet Park:

Carondelet Park Recreation Center Construction, View to Northeast, August 2009

So, how did the City of St. Louis come to build this recreation center in the first place? According to an April 2, 2003 article in the Riverfront Times, Former Congressman Dick Gephardt jump started the project in 2002 after securing Federal funds for preliminary design work of a recreation center in South City that would rival new centers in St. Louis County. Upon the first public meeting about the facility in 2003, a group of residents in the Holly Hills neighborhood expressed concern about the recreation center’s proposed location in Carondelet Park, the City’s third largest at nearly 180 acres. I remember attending a public meeting around this time, when planners first presented their proposed center design to residents of the Holly Hills neighborhood and surrounding areas. Alderman Villa was a moderator of the event. As the presentation dragged on, I realized that I was at odds with the majority view expressed by my neighbors; I wanted a recreation center, and I thought that the park was a logical place for such a facility, whereas many who spoke at the meeting did not.

Shortly thereafter, a number of yard signs critical of the community center’s proposed location in the park appeared throughout Holly Hills. The April 16, 2003 Riverfront Times features a number of community responses to what many perceived as Alderman Villa’s baseless smear of their motives and intentions in raising questions about the siting of the proposed center. Concurrent with the effort among some to challenge the recreation center’s proposed location, a master planning process for Carondelet Park progressed with considerable community involvement. In marked contrast to the opaque effort that produced draft plans for the recreation center, the Carondelet Park master planning process did not yield controversy, because residents had ample opportunity to express their opinions and influence the plan prior to its public unveiling.

St. Louis’s political leaders appeared silent on the matter of the Carondelet Park recreation center’s construction until Francis Slay’s April 2006 “State of the City Address.” During his speech, Slay uttered the following words:

To give kids and adults more things to do, I am also proposing that we work together on a funding package to submit to voters this November to build two new recreation centers — one in North St. Louis and one in South St. Louis.

You know how little I think of Francis Slay, but I just cannot resist the urge to criticize his lazy speechwriting team on this one: ”To give kids and adults more things to do [we should raise taxes]?” Come on, Francis; are you serious? I am proud to report that I voted against the tax increase, because I do not think that our City should increase taxes on lower income earners. Furthermore, our collective tax burden is high enough, and I do not believe for a minute that the City has a revenue problem; instead, we have a priorities problem. But I digress.

The Board of Aldermen took up Francis Slay’s tax increase on June 26, 2006; minutes from the July 21, 2006 meeting show that only Alderman Troupe voted against this particular measure when it came before the entire Board.

During the same meeting, Lewis Reed (before he was President of the Board of Aldermen) expedited approval of Francis Slay’s regressive tax increase with a motion to suspend the rules of the Board and seek final approval for dozens of other measures in an omnibus manner.

Minutes of the Board of Aldermen, July 21, 2006

In an instant, 24 persons unanimously voted to place the following language on the ballot in November 2006:

PROPOSITION P

Shall the municipality of the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax of one-eighth of one percent (1/8%) for the purpose of providing funding for local parks for the municipality and specifically, funding for the construction and maintenance of new and existing recreation centers and recreation programs in parks, including but not limited to programs for children and seniors?

Selling the proposal then became the job of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which authored an editorial supportive of the sales tax increase on October 9, 2006. Entitled “‘Yes’ on city recreation centers,” the editorial plays upon voter desires to have fully funded recreation programs and improved community center facilities, while downplaying the extent to which new tax revenues would fund new facility construction. The Post-Dispatch wrote:

…the city’s recreation program. It pulls young people off the streets, away from trouble, and into a place where activities are safe and supervised. At Wohl, recreation staffers and a guard with a pistol watch over things. A fight on the basketball court will get a player banned from the center for two weeks. A spate of cursing draws a reprimand.

But the city’s recreation program isn’t what it once was. Over the years, budget cuts have pulled the plug on city rec programs run out of church basements and school gyms in many city neighborhoods. Many after-school programs have stopped. “We used to have them all over the place,” says Parks Director Gary Bess. The city’s 10 aging recreation centers remain open, but they are falling apart.

On Nov. 7, city voters will get a chance to do something about that. Mayor Francis Slay has proposed a one-eighth-cent increase in sales taxes. It would produce $4.4 million a year. The money would be used to build two new recreation centers, one in Carondelet Park in south city and another in north St. Louis, probably in O’Fallon Park.

The centers would be similar to the new community centers in Clayton and Richmond Heights, with gyms, running tracks, exercise equipment, meeting rooms and pools indoors and out. Unlike the current city rec centers, the new centers would charge those who can afford it. Estimates made in 2004 put that charge at about $45 a month for an adult and $58 a month for a family. For individuals and corporate citizens looking for a place to do some good, sponsoring memberships or helping underwrite the cost of the centers is a perfect opportunity.

The city’s older recreation centers will remain free and get long-overdue renovations if the referendum passes. In neighborhoods without rec centers, the city proposes to reopen programs in school gyms and churches. There will be pre-school programs, open gym nights and expanded recreation league sports….

The sales tax increase on the ballot would add a penny to the price of a $10 scarf. Like all sales taxes, it takes proportionately more from the poor than from the rich. If we had our druthers, the mayor would have proposed a property tax increase or a bond issue. But voters have shown repeatedly that they’d rather pay their taxes a penny at a time at the cash register — if they even notice –than in one big property tax check. It’s much easier to pass a sales tax.

The tax is small and the benefits large. The payback won’t be limited to the kids playing sports or the older adults gathering for senior citizen meetings.

One of the keys to keeping children safe and out of trouble is keeping them busy, especially in disciplined activities that make them feel part of something bigger than themselves such as a dance squad or a basketball team. The hours between school dismissal and 8 p.m. are critical, says Police Chief Joe Mokwa…

Offer kids something to do in a protected, structured environment with an adult role model, and you’ll pull them out of the reach of drugs and gangs.

The alternative is more crime on the streets — and more victimized children.

Disappointingly, there has been virtually no public campaign for the rec centers, although the mayor has mentioned it as a priority in speeches at community meetings. Nor is there significant opposition to it.

It’s such a good idea, and there’s such a crying need for things for kids to do in the city that if the referendum doesn’t make it this time, we must not to give up on it.

As Chief Mokwa says, “Recreation centers send the message that we do care.”

That’s a message all kids need to hear.

I have to hand it to the Post-Dispatch; at a time when I thought it could not get any more offensive, the Post editorialized in support of Francis’s tax increase by asserting that a failure to pass Proposition P would lead to the “victimiz[ation] of children.” Whatever. The heavy-handed writer also invoked the name and opinion of our now-disgraced former Police Chief, Joe Mokwa, to complete his paternalistic argument that voter support for the sales tax increase was a way to help children (certainly not a way to direct public money to Francis Slay’s campaign contributors).

Not everyone believed that annual proceeds from the sales tax increase would accomplish everything its supporters, Francis Slay and the Post-Dispatch, asserted. In his brilliant op-ed published in the Post on October 16, 2006, President of the WYMAN Center David A. Hilliard observed:

I applaud Mayor Francis Slay for making recreation a priority by backing a dedicated sales tax. It is an important step in the right direction for youth and families in St. Louis neighborhoods. However, based on a study conducted by my firm, WYMAN, in 1995, I suspect the proposed tax will be woefully inadequate.

Assuming building costs for two $15 million to $20 million facilities, 30-year financing could consume half or more of the new tax annually. In 1995, Sverdrup estimated renovation costs to the city’s 10 existing recreation centers at $21.5 million. Today, that cost is probably more than $50 million. The proposed revenue from the dedicated tax likely will be consumed by facility construction and repairs. How will the City afford to operate them?

Despite the hard work of St. Louis’ public recreation staff, decades of underfunding have diminished the city’s capacity to serve the needs of about 100,000 youth. In 1995, former city Budget Director Marie Jefferies told WYMAN researchers the city budget was so strapped that she could not foresee more money for recreation for decades. It’s no surprise, then, that the 2007 city budget for recreation is just a little over $2 million and the city’s website indicates the division has 26 full-time employees. That is one-third less money and one-fourth the full-time employees the division reported in 1995, when WYMAN facilitated the research and publication of The Blueprint for Youth Recreation, proposing alternate strategies for meeting the recreational needs of St. Louis’ youth.

That report found that $20 million was needed annually to meet the recreational needs of a city of 300,000 with world-class services. Today that would approach $30 million…

The op-ed continues with an accounting of specific recommendations that Hilliard’s firm made to the City in 1995 to improve recreation programs based on “best practices in other major cities.”

Unfortunately, St. Louis voters did little to demand accountability from the Mayor on the subjects of how he would use additional sales tax revenue, the timetable for construction of new recreation centers, or the specific programs that he would implement. The sales tax passed, as Missouri thrillingly (and thankfully) kicked Jim Talent out of the U.S. Senate in favor of Claire McCaskill. (Not every Ward supported Proposition P, however, as Wards 1, 4, 18, 22, and 26 opposed the tax increase.)

Construction of the Carondelet Park recreation center commenced in 2008, well before its counterpart in O’Fallon Park even went out for bid. A February 6, 2008 Riverfront Times article noted:

…City officials say they will solicit construction bids for the north-side center this spring, but already they are looking for additional money. The first ominous sign was that the low bid for the identical south-side center was $20.8 million, some $2 million more than expected. On top of that, parks officials aren’t sure who will manage it.

Parks commissioner Dan Skillman says the city was counting on the YMCA because of its experience with fee-based facilities. But once YMCA officials looked at the numbers, they weren’t interested.

At the same time that the YMCA was refusing to manage the proposed North St. Louis recreation center, YMCA attorneys in South St. Louis were reviewing a serious proposal to manage the Carondelet Park center (South Side Journal, March 25, 2008). For any number of unreported reasons, the City did not seek to codify its agreement with the YMCA for more than a year as construction on the facility progressed. The Suburban Journals reported on February 20, 2009 that the City and YMCA finally agreed to the following for the Carondelet Park facility:

• Monthly household membership rate of $69 and individual monthly rate of $46;
• The YMCA will operate the $21 million facility for 15 years after it opens around Sept. 1 and will have three 10-year options to renew it;
• The YMCA will take 10 percent of fees collected as an administrative services cost.

The Board of Aldermen first took up the matter of who should manage the Carondelet Park recreation center in June of this year: seven years after Former Congressman Gephardt commissioned the design, three years after Francis Slay proposed constructing it, and more than a year after its construction began. My man Matt introduced Board Bill 111 in early June, and the Board of Aldermen approved  the measure, which includes an “emergency clause,” unanimously by voice vote and then unanimously by roll call vote.

Minutes of the Board of Aldermen, June 26, 2009

The July 2, 2009 minutes of the Board of Aldermen report that Francis Slay signed Board Bill 111, which gives the YMCA of Greater St. Louis exclusive management rights over the first recreation center constructed in St. Louis City since 1971 (Post-Dispatch, October 9, 2006). Whatever. That’s simply how politics in St. Louis operates.

Who cares about competitive bidding?

• Just give the YMCA control.

What about the YMCA’s existing building at 600 Loughborough?

• Don’t ask questions; just let the YMCA close it.

Is this why voters agreed to raise taxes?

• We said that we would build a rec center. Do details really matter?

Who will manage the O’Fallon Park recreation center?

• Don’t address that question equitably by including it in the same bill that establishes a management agreement for the Carondelet Park center.

Will residents be able to afford the center’s fees?

• They paid for the center once; why not make them pay twice.

Why did we even privatize management of the center anyway?

• Obviously, paying 10 percent more than the costs of operation is “in the best interests of the City” (BB 111).

Did anyone ever think to ask who manages comparable centers in St. Louis County (The Center of Clayton, The Heights, The St. Peters Rec-Plex, others)?

• No.

Doesn’t the YMCA pay to construct its own facilities in other communities?

• Yes, but St. Louis City is different. We can’t possibly hold the YMCA accountable for failing to make capital improvements at the Carondelet YMCA. Instead, we’ll just raise taxes, construct a new building, and turn it over to the Y without requiring the Y to make any investment of its own. In fact, we will sweeten the deal by gifting the Y 10 percent of all receipts from fees.

Don’t legislators usually debate bills before a vote?

• Wait, Aldermen are legislators? No, no. That has to be a joke. We are colleagues, who work together to improve the City, but the City would absolutely cease to function if there were fewer than 28 of us.

Is private management inherently better than public management?

• Absolutely nothing that we do is ideological in any conventional sense of the word, so we have no reason to answer the question.

Doesn’t an “emergency clause” prevent voters from challenging our actions?

• We know them better than they know themselves. Thankfully, few of them ever turn out when we are on the ballot. Otherwise, we might have to answer for our lazy legislating.

The August 2009 CCBF Carondeletter confirms that the facility will open in mid-November of this year.

Thank you, Francis Slay for giving me “more things to do.” As the City Charter requires that one be “at least twenty-five years of age” prior to serving on the Board of Aldermen, I have at least a year to disabuse myself of the belief that Aldermen should represent us by being deliberative in the passage of legislation. Only then might I be able to serve.

View Larger Map