27 Comments
User's avatar
Annie Nelson's avatar

I just submitted the following letter to all members of the council:

Mayor and Councilmembers,

Regarding ALL the proposed housing and parking projects, it's become quite clear that you are not reading any of your letters nor any of the results of your (poorly designed) public feedback surveys. It is clear that you are severely out of touch with your own constituents. I read all the letters in the agenda packets, clearly you don't. Have you tuned into the ever growing list of commenters on Perry Boyle's substack? Or read any of the editorials in the Mountain Express? I highly suggest you do. The list of frustrated and concerned citizens is growing. People are deeply upset.

Out of frustration, people are organizing a centralized social media site to voice concern and take action.

Currently you are protecting yourselves from public opinion by virtue of the deeply flawed design of your city council structure.

At this point, you are guilty of both willful negligence and willful ignorance.

You continue to IMPOSE a never ending series of misguided housing and parking projects that NO ONE WANTS, and that will permanently destroy the town's liveability, viability and character.

Thank you to Tripp Hutchinson who seems to be the only one who 'gets it' and has the integrity to stand up to all this nonsense. Tripp: I don't know how you can stand to sit through those city council meetings. It has to be exceedingly frustrating.

To Neil and others: Start reading your letters. Listen to your people. Do your job.

-Annie Nelson

Expand full comment
Christian Wrede's avatar

I attended KURA's meeting regarding the LID at Ketchum City Hall today and think there is a good chance of stopping this project.

In broad strokes, the City Council, KURA, etc. want to get the LID in place by Fall 2025 so they can get final approval for the housing project and subterranean parking by the end of 2025 and begin construction in 2026.

Basically, the City Council is trying to cobble together a makeshift LID so it does not have to bother with voter approval the general bond that would otherwise be required to pay for subterranean parking. The City Council can impose a LID on its own, but general bonds require approval by 66 2/3% of voters.

At first, it looked like the City would only have to raise $8.5 million through the LID for the subterranean parking project. They thought they could do that through just 2 LID zones -- one within 2 blocks of the Project (Zone 1) and the second 2-4 blocks from the Project (Zone 2).

It now appears that they need $13 million from the LID to install subterranean parking because funding the housing project has shifted around a bit.

Thus, their new plan is to apply the LID to all of Ketchum through tiered assessments in 4 zones. Zone 4 is residences on the outskirts of Ketchum. Zone 3 is mostly residences that are closer to City Center (Zone 1) than the residences in Zone 4 are.

I think the per square foot assessment for Zone 1 (City Center) is something like 20x the assessment for Zone 4.

For property-based assessments such as these, the Constitution requires that there be an "essential nexus" between the Project and the property that is being assessed and that the amount of the assessment be "roughly proportionate" to the benefit created by the Project for the assessed property.

There are several potential problems for the proposed LID, under this framework. For example:

-- It does not distinguish between commercial properties and residential properties (which will presumably be affected differently).

-- It does not distinguish among types of commercial uses (i.e., high traffic operations (bars) vs. low traffic operations (law offices)).

-- It is based on lot size (as opposed square footage of revenue generating space).

-- It does not distinguish between developed land and undeveloped land

-- It does not account for the fact that residents in the immediate vicinity of the parking structure get no benefit at all yet pay the largest assessment on a per square foot basis.

-- It piecemeals the project (looking at the purported benefits of parking without the likely burdens of additional housing units) and fails to account for the fact that the site in question currently provides surface parking

Facts like these might also raise equal protection issues. 

And, generally speaking, LIDs are narrowly drawn and supported by businesses within LID boundaries. A citywide LID opposed by the very property owners it is supposed to benefit is unusual.

As noted above, the City is plainly trying to use its putative LID powers to avoid having to get voter approval for a bond.

They might have gotten away with it if the project costs were not so high and they could limit LID assessments to businesses in the "City Center," so to speak, but for the reasons set forth above (i.e. tiered assessments covering residences, businesses and undeveloped land throughout all of Ketchum), I think there is a good chance a court would find that the proposed LID is an unlawful attempt to circumvent voter-approval requirements for new municipal debt. Needless to say, more research (including fact development and a review of state law) in required, but that is my initial sense.

For what it's worth, I got the impression that the mayor and City staff, etc. know they are vulnerable and indicated that the entire build might have to be scrapped if they could not figure out a parking solution. And a KURA Board member told me he did not expect the housing project or the parking project to get approved.

In sum, I think there is a good chance of stopping this if there is sufficient opposition. I know it's not easy but there is reason to mobilize.

Expand full comment
Christian Wrede's avatar

I agree with Ed and Julie that this project (and the terrible precedent it is setting for the entire WRV) can be stopped but that more action is required on the part of concerned residents in Ketchum (and beyond) to support Perry and build on his work.

Is there any interest in forming a working group to develop a communications plan, legal strategy, and such?

As to legal strategy, I think (in broad strokes and off the top of my head) that the proposed LID could potentially be challenged as an unconstitutional exaction since property owners in the LID would not benefit from the new parking structure relative to the status quo -- and certainly would not get benefits equal to or in excess of the amount they would have to pay in new taxes. Similarly, the tiered LID (where the tax increment decreases in rough proportion to distance from the project) seems somewhat arbitrary and otherwise suspect.

There may also be due process and conflict of interest arguments, given the false information KURA is publishing about the project (in order to secure approvals) and the cozy relationship between the Mayor, the City Council and KURA. Again, just some quick thoughts that may or may not have merit.

As to communications, it would be great if we could put up a website and social media based on Perry's work (to share information and further build a distribution list) and create a "one click" email platform that makes it super easy for residents who oppose the project to convey their views to the City Council. That could potentially result in hundreds of emails to the City Council on this and related issues.

Finally, some public records requests may be in order to keep up to speed and see if we can unearth any secrets relevant to our legal strategy or communications work.

I would be happy to take a first cut at a preliminary legal assessment on a volunteer basis (just to see what our options might be) and have access to great "one click" capabilities, if there is a critical mass in support in this approach and others want to address the other bodies of work.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

How is the financing actually going to work? The structure below is from November 18th Joint City Council / KURA meeting.

***************************

The estimated cost of Option 6 is $24 million. Financing options assumed the cost of a structure at $21 million. In the event the Council and KURA support this level of expenditure, staff will work with the development team to value engineer the structure cost. A $21 million structure could be financed by the city issuing a Certificate of Participation (COP) and establishment of a Local Improvement District (LID) in addition to a KURA financial commitment. A COP is a method of funding used by government agencies for construction of public facilities. It consists of lease financing to offset the debt payment for the public facility. A COP does not require voter

approval. An LID can be created by the city for the purpose of constructing and financing the cost and expense of improvements within the designated district. Properties within an LID are assessed to fund the public improvement.

Using the COP and LID approach to financing, the following summarizes the parking structure financing plan:

• KURA cash contribution of $4.0 million

• $8.5 million Certificate of Participation issued by the City of Ketchum with a 20-year term.

• City leases the structure to KURA and KURA pays the $639K annual debt service until 2030.

• After 2030, City pays debt service using projected tax increment revenue returning to city after KURA district expires.

• Local Improvement District (LID) is established and issues $8.5m in debt for a 15-year period.

• LID funds $778K annually with debt service for 15 years.

*****************************

How does the City plan to fund the $639K per year for their bond? are they going to get $10 per day for each of the 195 stalls, 365 days a year to make that nut?

How are nearby property owners going to fund a $778K per year for that bond? If you look at their sample annual contributions, Village Market which is perhaps biggest/nearest property would pay $7K per year. Are there a hundred of those in LID range of 1st and Washington?

This seems to be a crazy set of commitments to put on top of a community housing project that could be somewhere else and not cause this parking calamity?

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

I took the survey just now. It clearly is a "what type of garage structure, if any, would you like with your community housing project". The conjoint analysis in no way asks if you want a community housing project at 1st and Washington. With that said, I am left to wonder how it was determined that Ketchum residents want the project?

Perry, I suspect you know the history on this well. Was this another Survey Monkey effort? Should something this financially and socially impactful be on a vote by referendum to truly obtain community approval or rejection?

Is it sensible to drop the contention in the community at 1st and Washington and concentrate on YMCA and Lift Tower Lodge sites that are not in commercial core?

Expand full comment
Perry Boyle's avatar

The mayor initiated the housing development of the Washington lot in his first term, when he sold that lot from the City to KURA to get the money to move City Hall so that Bluebird could be built on the old city hall site. I know that sounds convoluted, but that is what happened.

Then, he appointed KURA members who would commit to building housing on that site. No representatives from the retail community who needed it as parking were selected for KURA. Also, he justified no parking requirement at the Ketch buildings, saying those tenants could park on this lot. Knowing full well, he was pushing for the lot to be a housing project. In none of these instances was the public consulted to develop the lot into housing.

Yes, it is sensible to drop this project and appoint a KURA representative of the commercial community. However, I think the first part of that will happen only if WRCHT drops out, which I hope they do. We won't get a good KURA until we have a good mayor.

As to the other two locations, there should be NO MORE COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPED UNLESS it is reserved for essential workers who work in Ketchum. That is NOT what BCHA (e.g., Keith Perry and Carissa Connelly) have in mind. They have already received Federal money for their next project, which means it will be, like Bluebird, open to ANYONE, who works anywhere, or does not work at all, to live in, as long as they meet the income cap. That isn't good for Ketchum. I am hearing rumors that Keith Perry plans to run for mayor. That would also be bad for Ketchum.

LTL is a terrible place for workforce housing. It is an INCREDIBLY valuable piece of land that should be sold to acquire deed-restricted housing for essential Ketchum workers in a better location. Taxpayer resources should only go to housing for essential workers, preferably ones with families. We don't need more retirees or more handouts for SVC. We need our cops, teachers, and city workers to live in our community, and families with children for our future.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

Totally agree that the real need is for essential workers. Let's stipulate that without question.

I hear you on value of LTL land. If development could require deed-restrictions for essential Ketchum workers, and financing use private sources to not get boxed in to low AMI; would you object to LTL for a project?

I hear it coming and am sympathetic to next thought to sell the land and get enough money to do more than the 50 units that could be done at LTL.

Expand full comment
Perry Boyle's avatar

I object to LTL for City development.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

Fair enough. I understand and respect your POV.

Expand full comment
Julie W Johnson's avatar

Hi Tim,

The Washington Ave. project was decided years ago. About eight years ago but was talked about even further back than that.

Seems like I was the only person in Ketchum who knew about it and was vocally opposed to it.

Perry's letters and KBAC have (finally) raised the public's awareness of this project as well as soooo many other projects being shoved down our throats.

Urban Renewal Agencies do not need public input. They are now illegal in most States. There was a time and a place for them within the severely blighted areas of large municipalities where there was no tax money generated for community improvements like sidewalks, lights and waste removal.

Our Urban Renewal KURA (please do not confuse this with KBAC Ketchum Business Advisory Coalition) has decided to go into the development business.

My personal opinion is that they are not particularity good at development. I don't think any of these people are in the building business.

That aside, I am delighted that the community is finally waking up to the goings on with our city leaders.

They are driving daddy's car off the proverbial cliff and taking others with them.

Yes, they can e stopped. You must show up at the meetings. You must voice your opinion. You must get involved.

You can not assume that others know how to act in your best interest.

I look forward to meeting you at the next LID meeting at City Hall 12:00 Tuesday Feb 18. That is tomorrow.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

Hey Julie, I'm not a Ketchum resident so I don't have standing. I do have interest and hope that the City gets this right. I'm not sure they will. Perry does a nice agent provocateur job with this task which is probably often thankless.

Expand full comment
Julie W Johnson's avatar

Hi Tim,

I really appreciate your honesty and careful responses. Maybe a good place for your voice to be heard is through 'participate@ketchum.org ' Everyone at the City reads those letters.

Thank you for caring

Expand full comment
Kevin Livingston's avatar

We don't have to be residents to have a voice on this issue. We are paying taxes as homeowners which should mean something

Expand full comment
sue's avatar

I just wrote in "No community housing in the commercial core."

Expand full comment
Sean Tajkowski's avatar

Just like they said we need a parking lot with a meter. How did that work out for them? These meters and all the time taken were not cheap. The town rebelled immediately and never parked in the lot. “CAN YOU HERE US NOW”!!!!!

Same survey was said to have been in overwhelming support. Actions spoke loud and clear. The City does not represent the public, it’s quite clear. Vote them out please. Time to clean house.

Additionally, businesses and sales taxpayers cannot vote, and make up the majority of the users of this town. Is there another way we can be heard and serviced. After all, it’s not the 2nd home owners who answer these surveys or vote on such topics. It’s a service town, listen to your businesses and customers.

45 years in this valley and it’s all slowly eroding. We need community back desperately!

Expand full comment
KBAC's avatar

There are LID workshops scheduled for today, Tuesday, Feb. 18th at 12pm at City Hall, and Wednesday, Feb. 19th at 5:00pm. Please plan to attend.

There is also a City Council meeting scheduled for today, Tuesday, Feb. 18th at 4:00pm with a recap of potential housing developments on the agenda. Here is a link to that staff report:

https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ketchid-meet-4bb9e365422a49b5a555bde683d3d8be/ITEM-Attachment-001-8f2064a156a141e7836052079bc5e2ee.pdf

Expand full comment
Annie Nelson's avatar

@Christian Wrede - I would gladly sign on/support any group efforts and social media campaigns. The city needs to see a centralized site / list of names, to actually believe how many people don't support all their misguided projects. And yes, there are a shocking number of conflicts of interest with this city council and KURA and other agencies. They have the town in a choke hold.

Expand full comment
Kevin Livingston's avatar

We will need a large posse, make Mountain Express is there and film it. I’m happy to paste Suzanne Frick’s enail to me supporting Perry’s claims about her lying

Expand full comment
Kevin Livingston's avatar

Do we have any attorney's on this site that can provide feedback whether or not the City is doing anything illegal or if we have a shot at implementing a pause? When PEG got lightening fast approval for the Marriott, we discovered they forgot to provide proper notice to some nearby neighbors. This caused them to start all over again. Then came Covid followed by high interest rates and the project is on hold

Expand full comment
Christian Wrede's avatar

I'm just plugging into this, so I am missing a lot of the facts, but in the pre-approval stage, you basically want to be looking to (i) slow down (or "pause") the project (as you note) and (ii) preserve claims for litigation assuming the project is approved.

The most common way to slow down the project (aside from getting members of the city council to change their positions) is to identify and raise procedural defects. Typically, that involves failure to provide notice to affected parties (as with your Marriott example); failure to comply with "due diligence" requirements under state or local law (i.e., committee review, staff reports and such); and defects in the manner in which public hearings are conducted (lack of quorum, inadequate opportunity for public comment, etc.).

Preserving claims basically means making sure to bring disqualifying defects (procedural and substantive) to the attention of the city council in the course of the approval process. In this case, for example, we might argue that the LID is unconstitutional or that the fact that City Council members are on the KURA Board violates due process. Similarly, you might argue that the project somehow runs afoul of state law or city ordinances governing new builds (height, density, FAR, parking, etc.). If we do not raise such arguments now (before the project is approved), a court may not allow us to sue on them later. The idea is that you must first "exhaust" remedies at the city level before seeking relief from a court.

I worked on a similar matter involving the so-called "Monster on the Venice Canals" (3 acres, 140 units, 2 parking structures) a block off Venice Beach. Long story, short, the project has been on ice for 9 years now even though the Los Angeles City Council approved it, giving Venice time to remove and replace the councilmember driving the project. Very unlikely to move forward at this point.

So there is hope. But it can take a lot of work and requires multi-faceted approach.

Expand full comment
Kevin Livingston's avatar

That is very helpful. I'm only a part time resident and in CA most of the time. We need Perry and/or some of the folks from Kaba to help drive this one.

Expand full comment
Kevin Livingston's avatar

Perry, if all is true, we must have a legal option to pause any decisions. Suzanne Frick's response to my email stated something like "84% support this project."

Expand full comment
Perry Boyle's avatar

She is a liar. When we have a new Council, we will have new people.

Expand full comment
Julie W Johnson's avatar

Perry, will you please list the up coming meetings in your post?

People need to not just bitch but show up.

If folks have something to say then FUCKING say it to those in charge.!!!

Expand full comment
ed cummins's avatar

By then the damage will done and irreversible. An effective action should be implemented now.

Expand full comment
ed cummins's avatar

I think we should get a group together to hire an attorney and seek a pause in all of this self serving destruction of Ketchum. This City Council does nor reflect the will of the people. Anyone recommend a lawyer with expertise in such actions?

Expand full comment
Christian Wrede's avatar

I agree with Ed that we should try to form a working group to put up a website / social media, create a "one click" email platform and assess possible legal action.

Expand full comment