Re: Hamilton funds

["Linda Pall" <lpall@moscow.com>]

Dear Everyone,

Thanks to both Greg Kimberling and Council member Steve Busch for their
comments, included at the end of this posting. Read it first if you haven't
already.

The problem we have as a City Council (and it's a fortunate problem) is that
we must act as fiduciaries and very careful managers for the city's funds,
from a dollar of tax money to a $7 million bequest. We also have policy
responsibilities to the wider community.

The terms of the Hamilton will are very broad. It's always difficult when
dealing with wills to draft the testator's wishes precisely but broadly and
flexibly as well because we are not omnicient. We do not want to draft so
specificly that we confine people who come after to a narrow proposal but we
want the wishes and desires of the testator honored.

In this situation, Greg's comments about what Mr. Hamilton wanted (or didn't
want) are helpful to our deliberations. The City of Moscow through its
elected officials are charged with determining the future of these funds.

If I could summarize our deliberations as Moscow Dream Team II (council
members plus appointed citizens who have met several times with
distressingly little newspaper coverage or citizen attendance) to date, I
would do it as follows:

a. We are operating under Mr. Hamilton's desire to benefit the youth of
Moscow.
b. We are focusing on active recreation opportunities for youth, rather than
more passive recreation such as reading, arts and crafts, quiet games,
education, etc. [Presumably we believe that these other activities are
available to children through the schools, home, the university and other
parks and recreation programs... enhanced soon by the further development of
the 1912 Center through the generosity of other Moscow residents and
benefactors.]
c. We want to see the funds donated "used and reused" and have reviewed
several options which amount to using the Hamilton funds as collateral for
financing proposed projects, leaving the funds available AGAIN, once the
project is completed for future youth projects and programs.
d. We have reviewed various endowment fund proposals and have not made a
formal decision about this direction. We have found that the investment
strictures for municipalities do not allow us to have a very aggressive
portfolio strategy which limits the potential for adding to the endowment.
e. The Committee as a whole has zeroed in on one immediate use of funds,
i.e. the assistance for the skating facility which was forwarded to the
Council and recently approved, and two major projects for future funding:

1. Development of playfields on the Joseph Street Property in conjunction
with the Moscow School District.

2. Further development on the swimming pool site for an active recreation
center (gym, active indoor sports uses, parks and recreation office
availability, etc.) including the possibility of providing the retractable
bubble to cover the pool or portions of it for the cold seasons of the year.

The second project is being reviewed and worked on by the same architects
who assisted us with the pool to provide a schematic design which we will
use to receive community comments and ideas in the future. I'm a little
cloudy on exactly when this review will take place.

As to the comments below about the "folly" of providing the retractable
cover to the pool and providing for a central , connected entry for the pool
and the active recreation facility, the broadbased survey results used by
the first dream team showed covering the pool was the NUMBER ONE priority of
citizens. Active winter recreation for kids COULD include visits to a
seasonally covered pool...!

Also consider the need to conserve our maintenance and operations funds so
that when it is possible to do double duty and save staff, we should do so.
If the schematic review shows that a single entry is not feasible and would
not provide the hoped for staff savings, we should not do it. But we should
not reject out of hand such an obvious possibility for the next phase of our
facilities at the pool.

I am sympathetic with Greg's frustration expressed below. It is always more
satisfying to get the projects we want to build on the road immediately.
Randy Rice made the helpful suggestion of getting the pool architects
involved so we have a clearer idea of what the facility could include and
its costs.

And I realize Greg's comments referred to me when he talked about "certain
members of the council who lobby etc."  That is my job as a council member:
to look after the views of people throughout the community who are not
necessarily at the table and would want their voices heard. This doesn't
mean that these views are always adopted but they should be heard and
considered. The meetings have been open, frank and have included the
opinions of all. I trust Mayor Marshall will continue that policy.

I am including Vision 2020 on this posting. The public is welcome to attend
our meetings and be part of this important policy discussion. Final
decisions have not been made though some general directions have been
determined.

All the best to each of you as we work together for the benefit of Moscow's
youth as well as the community at large,

Linda Pall
Moscow City Council member

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Busch <steveb@moscow.com>
To: Rice, Randy <rrice@moscow.com>; Pall, Linda <lpall@moscow.com>;
Comstock, Marshall <comstock@moscow.com>; Busch, Steve <steveb@moscow.com>;
Burton, Damon <dburton@uidaho.edu>; Hamlett, Peg <haml8911@uidaho.edu>;
Hill, Jack <jmhill@moscow.com>; Mack, JoAnn <jmack@turbonet.com>; Thomason,
Mike <mthomason@avistacorp.com>; Kimberling, Greg <kimberling@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: FW: Hamilton funds


> I asked for and received Greg's permission to send this message to the
> entire Dream Team II group.  When I asked Greg why he didn't send this
> message to everyone, he said he didn't want to have to have a City Council
> meeting in order to discuss his thoughts.
>
> Greg's comments reminded me of some fundamental issues and I want to take
> advantage of this opportunity to state my opinions.  I hope we can discuss
> some of this at the next meeting.
>
> 1. Randy Rice and Greg Kimberling knew Mr. Hamilton and his ideas.  While
> his will was written broadly, he did have some specific ideas on how the
> money should be spent.  As elected officials, we have a duty to be good
> stewards of the publics money.  In this case, we also have a
responsibility
> to Mr. Hamilton see that his generous gift is spent in general agreement
> with his wishes.  Randy and Greg know that best and when they tell us what
> Mr. Hamilton wanted, I think we need listen carefully.
>
> 2. If we aren't careful, we are going to spend all of the Hamilton money
and
> not have the endowment I thought we all agreed upon.  If you add up the
> projected cost of Joseph Street, the proposed rec facility, PIRA donation,
> and some other items rumored to be in the coming years budget, we aren't
> going to have anything left.  I do not support this course of action and
> will vote accordingly.  It looks to me like we may have to make some
> difficult choices and not do one of the major projects we have on the
table.
>
> 3. The idea of covering the pool and attaching it to the rec facility is
> folly.  It doesn't make sense on several levels.  We are wasting our time
> pursuing this course of action.
>
> I look forward to the next meeting when we can all express ourselves.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kimberling [mailto:gk@orofino-id.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: Steve Busch; Mike Thomason
> Cc: Greg Kimberling; gregk@moscow.com
> Subject: Hamilton funds
>
>
>
> Mike and Steve,  hope you're having a good day!
>
> I am getting ready to head out of town for a meeting in New Jersey and
> follow up next week with another meeting in California.
>
> I would like to visit with both of you regarding the Hamilton funds and
the
> committee.  I found out about the PIRA money Monday night when someone
> called me up to tell me about the $165,000 the council just approved.  I
> thought we had a preliminary discussion in the committee and I find the
> money approved when a friend calls me.  No advance word from anyone.
>
> Second, I am concerned about the direction we are heading with the
funding.
> Bob Hamilton wanted a gym - we were working on getting one done.  Now, we
> are developing Joseph St (which I am fine with) and we're analyzing the
pool
> cover issue and a number of other things.
>
> It is very evident from an outsider perspective that the council is really
> this committee because items are being decided at the council level before
> they are agreed to in the full committee.  So, I would prefer to give you
my
> thoughts so at least you can have a perspective on what Bob Hamilton
wanted
> done with the money.  In hindsight, I would have recommended to Bob a
> different approach.  Bob really thought that this money would be
controlled
> by Randy and Parks & Rec - not other people in the city who have their own
> preferences.  Randy was given several directions from Bob - almost as many
> as I was.  Randy just didn't know at the time he would benefit from Bob's
> comments. His influence here is being destroyed by other individuals who
are
> bent on their own agenda.
>
> I want to be involved in a productive process - not a process where
certain
> members of the council lobby and work on individuals until they get what
> they want.  I want to be helpful but if the process is really already
> decided then I have better things to do with my time.  I am frustrated
> because Bobby Hamilton's influence on this project appears to be on the
back
> burner - if it wasn't we would be building a gym by now.  Not studying and
> restudying the best way to use the gift he designated for the kids in town
> or to add things that are important to other individuals.
>
> I would like to set up a time after I get back on the 18th.  I hope you
> will consider visiting with me on the whole issue.  I know we all have a
> multitude of things that take our time so I will be brief.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Greg Kimberling
>
>