By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Garvin to become full-time city manager

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

MBert70

Only Kourtney Ferrua had ALL of the credentials requried to get the job. Let us not compare apples and oranges here!

tagup

C'mon people: Growth & improvement requires leaving your comfort zone. Ms. Payne & Mr. Geary are correct that a search is necessary. Does it really take 6-8 months to vet candidates & complete a hire?
Mr. Garvin's take it or leave it attitude and unwillingness to interview seems like a red flag to me.

B

Well big news here; I agree with tagup. The City Manager position is the most important in the city, particularly in a city with an all volunteer Council. Frankly, I'm not sure if the Mayor and council would know a good candidate if they saw one, but one has to wonder if an owner manager of a car detailing shop is qualified. He may have good ideas, but it takes more than that to lead. His response to the Holt Homes tree destruction still sticks in my craw.

tagup

Wow B!…. We’re having a blind squirrel/ broken clock moment!!! Haha:)

Northof60

I have recently interacted with Interim City Manager Garvin and he was very professional, understanding of issues, providing a written response that went above and beyond. He is quite well versed with anything and everything to do with McMinnville. Mayor Morris and other Councilors are spot on with this recommendation. Please, please, please welcome Mr. Garvin as our new City Manager.

NJINILNCCAOR

McMinnville is big enough, and complicated enough, to require a professional manager, who can focus 110% on this job. Mr. Garvey admits he has another job that he will be focusing on. He seems to be saying “sure I’ll take it if you give it to me, but I really don’t care one way or another”.

It sounds like city leadership is taking the easy way out here because Mr. Garvey is doing a “pretty good job” right now. This is not a good enough reason to hire him for the most important job in the city.

There are lots of red flags here. I think we can do better.

CubFan

I agree with most of you. The city should conduct a search for a better candidate. Garvin doesn't have the credentials that qualified city managers should have. And his "take it or leave it" comment is very telling. He would continue to split his time between this job, his car detailing business and his duties as president of the Fire Board, so could he devote the attention necessary to run the city properly? Additionally, I still have a bad taste in my mouth how he misled voters on the fire department vote. We can do better! We deserve better!

Angela Flood

Curious - when he was hired as the temporary manager, did they process his position like any other employee? Was an application completed and a background check done?

Are they really just going to move him into this position without having advertised it and allowed the public to weigh in?
He said, when taking the position, he was not interested in being the permanent choice. He said he was helping us out for the short term. Even now, he is saying he will take it, but he does not want to apply for it.

If they are going to choose him as the permanent manager, they need to really review the salary being paid compared to what he brings to the table.
There are laws that regulate the position he seems unfamiliar with.
In December, I asked for some public information. I waited several days for even a response to the email. After a month, I had to follow up to get the information I requested. Had I felt petty, there are complaints I could have filed to get him moving faster. Public records laws are very clear on timelines for acknowledging and responding to records requests.

He was elected to represent constituents and the council just slides him into a paid management position with no opportunity for the community to weigh in on that choice?

At this point, I would love for any councilor to represent constituents and bring the matter back to the public and process this in a transparent environment.
It kind of feels like already decided for us.

sbagwell

Cub Fan: I don't see how voters were misled on the future of the city's $1.50 fire levy. We reported in the leadup to the May 2023 fire district election:
12-9-22: “We as a council have decided that we don’t want to walk away from that $1.50,” referring to an early and informal consensus.
1-20-23: “City of McMinnville leadership is proposing to keep its $1.50 taxing authority in the event voters approve a new fire district in May.”
2-3-23: "When the city council wrestled with the issue last week, it came to one central point of agreement — it would suspend the tax for the 2023-24 fiscal year, starting July 1, and spend the coming months consulting with the public on its wishes.
"There was general support for phasing the tax back in over time, to meet demonstrated needs of high priority, but no consensus on how fast the phasing might proceed or where the priority should go among competing demands on the city treasury."
4-28-23: "The city currently devotes $1.50 of its $5.02 property tax assessment to fire and ambulance service. It would retain its full taxing authority with the merger, but its governing council has opted to suspend the fire and ambulance portion, rather than redirect it in part or full, for at least the first year.
"The vote on the one-year suspension was unanimous, but the council split three ways on any future reallocation. Three councilors favored restoring and repurposing the $1.50 over a three-year period, one fully restoring in no more than two years, and the other three hearing from constituents before authorizing any kind of reallocation."
Steve

sbagwell

I would also note our reporting when the $13 utility surcharge was added, to wit:
10-14-22 “The city services charge will be added to McMinnville Water & Light bills to address a $1.8 million shortfall in the city’s general fund AND ENSURE FUNDING FOR CITY SERVICES IN THE FUTURE." Two councilors wanted to make the fee temporary, but the rest prevailed in making it permanent, as the deficit was ongoing rather than one-time.
Steve

tagup

I seem to recall the Mayor commenting on the confusion surrounding the permanent status of the so called service charge in her campaign. That would indicate to me that a substantial group of voters, myself included, were under the impression that rectifying the 2021(?)budget deficit was the basis for the additional charge.
I submit that most people would have preferred the council actually balance the budget, rather than just service charge it away for future budget cycles.
Any way you stack it, the charge & related cost of living increase(s) is an end run around the voters.

Don Dix

So the COUNCIL made all the decisions about the $13 fee and the $1.50/K taxing authority without input from outside the 'circle'. But in 2022 the council had a boat load of 'yes men (women)' who never challenged the mayor or her dreams on anything.

Wasn't Garvin on that council and made supporting remarks about how the fire levy was just a $.50 increase from the original cost? - and then he ends up on the fire board. All I need to know! Do a real search!

sbagwell

Tagup:
It was not a one-time deficit. It was an ongoing gap between revenue and expenses, due to recur annually without a permanent fix.
Yes, services could have been cut instead by laying off personnel, reducing hours and cutting service levels. Yes, a different approach could have been taken to raising revenue. Yes, it could have been explained with greater clarity and a better job could have been done soliciting citizen input.
However, the decisions were made by duly elected public officials after extensive discussion and debate in open public forums that were well covered in the press. Nothing was done in the dark of night, and I don't see that the current council has much stomach for the service and personnel cuts a course reversal would require.
Steve

B

Can we get back to the real issue? Is Garvin qualified to be City Manager?

tagup

Steve- this charge is outside the tax levy, it’s described as a “service charge” on everyone’s utility bill and has nothing to do with water & lights business activities. It is basically tax dollars with no specific goal, in essence a slush fund that has no end date & increases incrementally every year.
Sticking to a budget is difficult work that requires difficult decisions, but that’s the council’s job. This type of “easy” solution certainly creates a bad precedent for tough decisions in the future. Now that the full tax levy is being utilized, How long before the next budget overrun is attached to our utility bill?

sbagwell

Yes, entirely separate. That's why I addressed them in separate takes.
However, they are clearly the two greatest local gripes irritating taxpayers and quite often lumped together as examples of greedy government overreach.
It's not my intent to defend or justify either assessment of the utility fee or retention of fire service taxing authority. It's rather to submit both were undertaken: 1) In the clear light of day; and 2) To protest staff and services our elected representatives could not bring themselves to part with.
Clearly, the benefits aren't worth the costs to many in the community. To others, they are.
That's how things work in representative government like ours. We agree to disagree.
Steve

sbagwell

To "protect," not "protest." Sorry about that.

tagup

The important difference is the tax levy was approved by voters… the utility service charge was not….

CubFan

Sbagwell

I say voters were mislead regarding the fire department levy, because of direct facebook conversations between citizens and Garvin. (unfortunately those messages have been deleted). I have talked with numerous citizens and city officials who read those messages and agree that Garvin was being cagey and chose his words very carefully in those conversations in order to convince voters to approve the fire department. In those conversations he stated two things: 1) voters would have the option of whether OR NOT to reinstate the $1.50. 2) And if voters agreed to accept the $1.50, then voters would have a say in how that money would be allocated.

The city did send out two faulty surveys to citizens about the tax rate. The News-Register conducted their own survey, which gathered 907 responses, of which 54% chose the option “return the savings to taxpayers”. The results of this survey were shared with the mayor and city council, but they apparently ignored the results and proceeded to apply the tax anyway, because the city fully intended all along to raise the tax rate back to $5.02 IN ADDITION to the new fire department rate of $2/M.

CubFan

sbagwell

Regarding the utility surcharge: one issue is how the city “explained “ it to citizens. They said they needed to add this fee to cover a $1.8 million shortfall. It’s easy to calculate that in the first year the city collected the amount to cover the shortfall. Citizens were LEAD TO BELIEVE it was temporary. In a NR story, Mayor Morris said she agreed the utility charge was implied as temporary. But now, 4 years later, we still pay it. The rub with this is: citizens asked about the fee, and were not given a straight answer.

I completely agree with the points tagup made above. The utility “fee” is nothing more than a tax by another name.

You referenced several NR articles, and might I say, even seem a bit defensive about the coverage of these topics. For the record, I’m a staunch supporter of the NR and feel very fortunate we have our beloved community paper. I was never for a minute implying the NR did not cover this. I’m sure you’re aware that despite a story appearing in the paper, not all citizens subscribe, and even those of us who do, can’t full absorb every story. But thank you for your dedication to our community!

And I DO completely agree with you that the fire department AND the utility fee are “clearly the two greatest local gripes irritating taxpayers and quite often lumped together as examples of greedy government overreach”.

tagup

SBagwell-
Any comment regarding Ms Payne’s statement in today’s article regarding the permanent status of the utility charge?
Do you know if there actually was an on the record council discussion about the temporary/ permanent status of the fee?

Ron

He’s got too many irons in the fire to be full-time manager. do the search. I’m surprised somebody hasn’t filed a complaint. That’s interested in the job. I witnessed a nationwide search a year ago. They had responses within a week doesn’t take that long to vet.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable