How Should Rivergrove Make Its Big Decisions?

Should residents hear about big City decisions after the plans are already moving? Or should they get the facts, and a chance to speak up, before anything is decided?

Two issues this year put that question front and center.

A Tax Measure Before the Audit

Earlier this year, the City asked voters to approve Rivergrove's first operating property tax levy. It did so before its overdue financial audit was done, and while questions about City spending were still unanswered.

Voters said no.

When the audit finally came in, it found weak financial controls and poor record-keeping. The Council then put new safeguards in place, including independent bank reconciliation and tighter controls over checks and spending.

So here's the question: Why didn't the City find and fix those problems before asking residents for more money?

Sidelining the Planning Commission Before Volunteers Came Forward

The same pattern showed up with the Planning Commission: Empty seats and missed meetings left the Commission without a quorum. The Council started to move the land-use duties to itself.

Then residents stepped forward, ready to serve.

That changed the question. If qualified volunteers were available, why not rebuild the Commission instead of handing off its duties?

It matters because the Planning Commission isn't just another City committee. It gives residents their own forum to review land-use issues, separate from the elected Council.

The Common Thread: When Do Residents Get a Say?

The City does not seem to gather the facts, does not want to involve residents early, and does not weigh alternatives before making big decisions. It moves first and fixes the problems later.

With three City Council seats on the November 3 ballot, voters get to decide how they want their next Council to make decisions.

Leah Silber, David M. Dull, and Joan Joyce each stress priorities that speak directly to that question: transparency and accountability, careful use of City resources, and real community involvement.

Different backgrounds. Shared priorities. A different way of making City decisions.