ISSUE #16: KURA Train on the Troika Tracks

Kiss downtown Ketchum parking goodbye--they are lighting $16mm on fire

As I wrote in Issue #4: KURA: Putting the Urban Into Ketchum, The Ketchum Urban Renewal Agency (KURA) is a tool of the Bradshaw/Breen/Hamilton Troika to get Bluebird 2 completed on the site of the Washington parking lot. The KURA meeting on May 20 was more evidence to support my assertion.

Developing Housing is Off-Mission for a URA

Urban renewal authorities are supposed to be agencies independent of a city council to mitigate urban blight with roads, sidewalks, and commercial properties, not replace scarce parking by developing apartment complexes. Ketchum is neither urban nor blighted, but a previous administration figured out how to take advantage of a statutory loophole to set up a URA to borrow money off the City’s balance sheet and siphon incremental property tax revenue away from the City’s general fund into pet projects—in a non-transparent way. This is terrible governance, but the lack of professionalism with which the KURA operates makes it even worse.

The Troika's exploitation of KURA’s powers has been flagrant. They used it to execute a series of real estate trades that circumvented the State's requirement for the City to obtain the highest value for surplus public property to secure Bluebird 1. Now, they are employing the same tactics to leverage KURA to construct Bluebird 2 in the commercial zone, eliminating 65 more parking spaces (on top of the 37 already being removed with the Main Street Project).

Troika Makes a mockery of KURA’s Independence

Two members of the Troika sit on KURA, and its staff is primarily composed of City employees. The executive director, a former City Planner, spearheaded the Bluebird project. One of the KURA Commissioners, appointed by the third member of the Troika, spends Ketchum resident money but does not reside in Ketchum. This lack of transparency and irresponsible governance is a hallmark of the current administration in City Hall.

KURA member Gary Lipton said the City hadn’t approved Bluebird 2. He said the KURA “has no idea what will happen with this project.” He emphasized that—NONE. He noted there are no city approvals for anything related to Bluebird 2.

Mr. Lipton is disingenuous. The Mayor put two Troika members on the KURA board to get this done. Unless one of them suddenly changes their stripes to represent the will of Ketchum residents, I am happy to give Mr. Lipton 50:1 odds that it gets approved. He said he has worked eight years on this project and will put every other project aside to make this project happen. This is a man who doesn’t live in Ketchum spending Ketchum taxpayer money on a project the URA constituents say they don’t want. How does this even happen? We know the answer: The Mayor controls appointments to KURA.

$16.3 Million of Parking Being Permanently Eliminated

Mr. Frederickson said parking is a KURA priority, but Mr. Lipton quickly corrected this, saying the City dissuaded them from investing in parking despite their willingness to pay for it. Mr. Lipton sees no money coming from KURA to invest in parking unless the City Council provides them with the land to do it. He foresees no money from KURA for parking.

The Chair said this was a new idea for her, and she’d like to see it fleshed out. Where has she been for the past decade?—even Mr. Lipton acknowledged that the KURA has constantly evaluated and dismissed parking. Ms. Hamilton wanted to correct the record that the City—the City did not tell KURA not to build parking (disingenuous for anyone who had been to those meetings). She said the Bluebird 2 parking spots cost $160k each, and the City didn’t want more of them because they were “too costly.”

With Bluebird 1, parking was valued at $75,000 per spot. Ms. Hamilton has put the value at $160k. I have grossly underestimated the value of parking being permanently destroyed by KURA and the City of Ketchum in the Ketchum core. Twenty-five spots on Main Street. Twelve spots on side streets. Sixty-five spots on the Washington lot, all permanently eliminated. Replacing 102 spots at $160k each would require $16.3 million. No one on the Council or KURA seems to be doing this math.

Meanwhile, demand for parking will go up while the supply is eliminated. The City has acknowledged that neither Bluebird 1 nor Bluebird 2 will provide enough parking to meet the demand of their residents, much less compensate for the parking destroyed in their construction.

More parking demand. Less parking supply.

Mr. Lipton advised people to get used to walking farther. He doesn't seem to care about the quality of life of the residents; he wants his apartment building.

Three more Bluebirds are coming, and KURA wants to spend more of your money on them. The City plans to build Bluebird 4 on the YMCA parking lot (Bluebird 3 is slated for the Lift Tower Lodge site; Bluebird 5 is slated for the 6th St lot). This is arguably a better location than at the heart of the retail core, but they can’t contractually do that without maintaining the Y’s access to parking. So, KURA is reserving money for site development for Bluebird 4 at that location. But at $160k per parking spot, I would bet they have under-budgeted for this.

Quite a mess, no? Bad governance + bad process + bad outcomes.

I hold no hope for any change until the Troika is voted out of office next year. Until then, things will get worse.

KURA’s Definition of a “Plan” Is Irresponsible at Best

If you have experience in the business world, you have a good sense of what a legitimate planning process looks like. It allocates scarce resources based on cost/benefit analysis. It has a timeline. It has risk scenarios. It has accountability. It has performance indicators to show how it supports the overall strategy.

None of that occurs with KURA’s allocation of our resources.

On Monday, they adopted a FY24/25 Priority Spending in conjunction with KURA’s Capital Budget Plan, which is a plan in name only. It is a subjective wishlist of the Commissioners.

There is no analysis.

There are no criteria for success.

There is no accountability for outcomes.

There is no coordination with the Ketchum Comprehensive Plan.

There are no objective criteria for anything at all.

You really should read it to appreciate the absurdity. You can find it here:

https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ketchid-meet-dba5f994379b43f49154983066c33d62/ITEM-Attachment-001-e4e1bb5e8fa149dd80634d925e8a47fa.pdf

With the numbers here:

https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ketchid-meet-dba5f994379b43f49154983066c33d62/ITEM-Attachment-001-2686a86acc9243fbb7b600ddd9841f1d.pdf

Compare KURA’s “plan” to the usual requirements of a capital allocation plan, per Claud.ai in the footnote below.¹

The Commissioners are more than just winging it; they are avoiding the norms of good governance to push a particular agenda in coordination with the Troika. To get the complete picture of what they are doing, I refer you to my previous posts on KURA, Corporate Welfare, Parking, Housing, etc.

The explicit goal of KURA’s capital spending plan is to spend as much money as it can before its authority to spend our money expires. I kid you not. Click on the second link above to read what they themselves have said their goal is.

Then, look at the spending allocations and ask yourself:

1. Who determined what items went into this budget? The answer: KURA was “guided” by the executive director. This former City Planner was turfed to KURA due to a myriad of complaints about how she ran the Planning Department. To which she was turfed after a multitude of complaints about how she operated as the City Administrator.

2. Where did these specific numbers come from? The staff either took a guess or KURA set a cap. There is no needs assessment and no cost/benefit analysis.

3. Is downtown Ketchum better off with the KURA or without it?

This is how the Troika maintains control of the outcomes—by maintaining a terrible process. More on that in my next post….

1. As a business planner, when developing a business plan for capital improvements, there are several key elements that should be included:

1. Executive Summary: This section overviews the capital improvement project, including its purpose, scope, and anticipated benefits.

2. Project Description: Provide a detailed description of the capital improvement project, including its objectives, the specific assets or facilities to be improved or acquired, and the expected impact on the business.

3. Market Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis of the market conditions, industry trends, and competitive landscape that justify the need for the capital improvement project.

4. Financial Analysis: This section should include detailed financial projections, such as the project's costs (acquisition, construction, installation, etc.), potential sources of funding (loans, equity, grants, etc.), and projected financial returns (increased revenue, cost savings, etc.).

5. Implementation Plan: Outline the project's timeline, milestones, and key tasks, including any necessary approvals, permits, or regulatory compliance requirements.

6. Risk Assessment: Identify and evaluate potential risks associated with the capital improvement project, such as regulatory changes, construction delays, or market shifts, and develop mitigation strategies.

7. Management and Organizational Structure: Describe the project's management team, roles and responsibilities, and the organizational structure that will oversee the project's execution.

8. Exit Strategy (if applicable): If the capital improvement project involves a significant acquisition or investment, outline the potential exit strategies, such as selling the asset or transferring ownership.

It's important to note that the specific elements and level of detail required in a business plan for capital improvements may vary depending on the project's scope, industry, and the intended audience (e.g., lenders, investors, or internal stakeholders).