It is time for you, the promoters of this consolidation effort, to lay down your arms. 

There will be no tax savings for Sun Valley taxpayers. There will be no improvement in city services for Sun Valley citizens. These are the two principal criteria I have always considered in any consolidation effort. 

You initiated this consolidation effort. You are now damaging the good name of Sun Valley in the eyes of the world and are creating ill-will with local businesses. You have created a massive division in our community. 

I do care that Ketchum is successful and that it survives. They are important neighbors. However it is not our City’s responsibility to take care of their financial problems. 

You must either put up a petition today or be done with it. 

March 30, 2009

Dear Fellow Sun Valley Citizens:

This consolidation, proposed under poorly written Idaho consolidation laws which have never been used, entirely favors the larger city of Ketchum. It is being promoted mainly by Ketchum individuals and their close business associates who are focused on improving Ketchum’s downtown and marketing the area. In reality the process is much more like an unsolicited annexation of Sun Valley, than a consolidation or merger of equal cities.

I am strongly opposed to this annexation of Sun Valley by Ketchum for a variety of reasons which I explain in greater detail below. The principal reason is this annexation provides practically no benefit to the voters, residents and taxpayers of Sun Valley. The promoters are not being straightforward with us in how they are selling the proposition. They are carefully distorting a number of facts in an attempt to make their case. We cannot rely on bad data and flawed reasoning when deciding the ultimate fate of Sun Valley.

The citizens and taxpayers of Sun Valley will not benefit from lower property tax payments and it is very likely the quality of city services we currently receive will decrease through staffing cuts proposed by the promoters. Our citizens will also lose the direct relationship they have with their elected representatives who live in their neighborhoods. Our citizens and taxpayers have expressed a willingness to continue to pay the small extra price to receive the superior level of service their local government provides them. They have told me they want their government close to them so they can control it.

As the Declaration of Independence so aptly reminds us: “…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”

It is an honor to serve you. Great thanks.

Nils Ribi

I first came to ski Baldy in the early 1960’s and came back almost every year since until my wife and I purchased a home in Sun Valley in the mid 1980’s. After a several year search, we specifically choose to live in the City of Sun Valley because the neighborhoods were spread out, there was ample open space and wide views and it offered a non-commercial, non-industrial and quiet atmosphere. We also appreciated the clear zoning regulations that were tailored especially to our town, particularly coming from an area that had virtually none. Those reasons still hold true today and are why we still choose to live in Sun Valley, not Ketchum or any other town for that matter. Since living here we have grown to greatly appreciate the high level of service our local government provides us.

Having said that, it is important to also look at the proposed annexation of Sun Valley on a factual basis. Unfortunately, the promoters of the annexation would rather we avoid the real facts and “dialogue” with them about other obscure and non-important issues, since they are unable to make a case for the annexation based on Idaho law or the financial stability of Ketchum. In order to have a proper “dialogue” however, we need to know with whom we are talking. The promoters were asked nearly two months ago to provide a list of the 10-15 members of their ad-hoc group they promised they would give. That has never materialized. I would have hoped they would be transparent about who is behind their effort and what their real motivations are in this attempt to annex Sun Valley into Ketchum.

Since the promoters first announced their annexation plans on February 23^rd, I have spent considerable time analyzing their public information as well as information I received from direct conversations with Messrs. Chase and Conn. My analysis, presented more thoroughly in five previous emails, has pointed out numerous factual errors in their presentation, as well as misrepresentation of information throughout their documentation, newspaper interviews and letters to the editor. As a result, they have either deleted or changed parts of their sales pitch and then followed that with public complaints that I am not interested in dialogue, I am only obstructing and being uncivil, and I am trying to protect my job, etc., etc.

These arguments obviously hold as much water as the proposal itself. While the promoters have recently changed their tactics and are now suggesting there is no hurry and there is plenty of time for discussion, a look at their materials show they are still on a fast track to get this consolidation done as quickly as possible. A normal course of proper dialogue would be to hold a discussion, see how people feel, then make a decision about whether or not to seek a petition drive and then put the issue on the ballot. In reality they are doing just the opposite.

The promoters want you to think they are going to have this nice “conversation” and then have a nice little “advisory” vote. They want to get it on the ballot quickly, and have it voted up or down before the citizens realize there is no going back once it is done. The promoters have only provided speculation as to what might happen once a consolidation is in place. There has been no thought given to any type of implementation plan or consideration given to the impacts it will have on the lives of the citizens of Sun Valley. There is no “pre-nuptial” agreement allowed in the Idaho consolidation law. There is no “divorce” either. Once it passes, it is forever and cannot be undone.

The Promoters' Case:

The promoters have argued that there are two basic reasons why we should hurry this annexation along. First, “we share a common downtown.” Second we “need to do a better job with our marketing strategy.” They are using the worldwide economic crisis as an excuse why it should be done now.

Regarding a shared downtown: I shop, dine and enjoy entertainment in Sun Valley, in Ketchum, in Hailey, in Twin Falls, in Boise, and in Salt Lake City. Should all of those be annexed into one city called Ketchum? Of course not. That is how absurd their argument is. We chose to live in Sun Valley and have a say in the government of Sun Valley, not Ketchum, Hailey or any other city for that matter. If I felt strong enough about wanting to have a say in any of those cities I would have taken up residence there.

Regarding a clearer, single marketing strategy to attract new visitors and businesses: Charles Conn told me “we can’t leave the Chamber to do what it’s doing and we don’t want to leave marketing to the Executive Director of the Chamber or the General Manager of the Sun Valley Company.” If the promoters feel that way, what in the world does annexing the City of Sun Valley with the City of Ketchum have to do with that sentiment? First, if they have a beef with the Chamber, they should deal with that through the city’s funding of the Chamber. Second, I think Mr. Conn and Mr. Chase do not understand the role of government. It is not the role of local government to instruct a private business on how to conduct its marketing.

I believe the promoters of this annexation idea have lost more than just their perspective of what the role of government is. I think they have forgotten that we live in a democracy and those of us in Sun Valley respect the democracy we live in. Sometimes it is not just more important to roll up a bunch of smaller local government units into one larger government where we lose control. The promoters’ two basic reasons to consolidate our cities do not give rise to anything that resembles a prudent cause for changing a long established, stable and effective government.

The Analysis:

In the past I have repeatedly said on the record how I would look at any consolidation of services issue. Click here to read what I have said. Once again I confirm, as I did then, that any consolidation of city services must either provide an improvement in the level of services that our city receives or it must save the taxpayers of Sun Valley money. Based on the promoters’ own words and assurances, I can say with full confidence that consolidation of the cities will result in neither of those. Further, my analysis shows there are additional serious pitfalls to the citizens and taxpayers of Sun Valley if this annexation were to pass.

Fund Balance Analysis:

I conducted a thorough unreserved fund balance analysis of both cities’ current fiscal year budgets and their effect at fiscal year end. The analysis takes a look at how much unreserved cash each city would have on hand to handle emergencies should there be any shortfalls in revenues or unexpected expenditures. This is a common standard of measuring the fiscal stability of a local government and is used by all the major credit rating agencies (Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, etc.).

The City of Sun Valley will have an unreserved fund balance with the equivalent cash to cover over 6 months of general fund operating expenditures at the end of Fiscal Year 2009. Ketchum currently has less than 3 weeks of reserve funds available to cover general fund operating expenditures. At the end of Fiscal Year 2009 they will have an estimated unreserved fund balance with the equivalent to cover less than 1 month of general fund operating expenditures.

As you will see from the complete analysis at the link below, the City of Sun Valley is in a strong financial position and the City of Ketchum is in a precarious financial position. This factual analysis is quite contrary to the assertions of the annexation promoters who would like you to believe that Ketchum and Sun Valley are on very similar financial footing. Unfortunately, the promoters are having a difficult time understanding municipal finance and unreserved fund balance analysis. They are attempting to confuse the issue with arguments that are incorrect and irrelevant.

If Sun Valley is going to consider being annexed by Ketchum, our citizens and taxpayers need to understand the truth about Ketchum’s financial health since we would become a minority party to the combined new city.

 Click here for details on the Fund Balance Analysis

 Implications of Idaho Consolidation Law:

We carefully reviewed Idaho State law regarding consolidation of cities. These laws date back to the 1960’s, but they have never been used. While the law is ambiguous on some points, in many respects it is very clear on what will happen. The promoters of this consolidation know it, but would rather paint a fuzzy picture that a lot of the decisions will be left to some unknown good people who will listen to all of us once the cities are merged.

In reality, Idaho law is very clear; Sun Valley will cease to exist the minute the consolidation passes, in its name, its laws and its government. We will lose all our specific Sun Valley ordinances that give us, our visitors and the Sun Valley Company special protection, including our Comprehensive Plan (there are a few technical exceptions related to lawsuits, certain vested rights and public improvements). At that point there is no going back. There is no do-over. There is no opportunity for further debate. Ketchum will take over and govern Sun Valley under the name Ketchum, which will seize all of Sun Valley’s money and assets, including our cash fund balance, City Hall, fire and road equipment, and 5-acre park.

As one example, Sun Valley citizens will lose the ability to decide what happens to our 5-acre park. This is important to understand because former Mayor Thorson, a promoter of the Ketchum annexation, had previously held talks, without the knowledge of the City Council, in an effort to try to swap the City’s 5-acre parcel with the present Catholic Church property. He proposed using that land to eventually build a joint Ketchum/Sun Valley City Hall and Fire Station. Fortunately those talks failed.

Click here for details on the implications of Idaho Consolidation Law

 Health and Safety Distortion Issues:

In reviewing the promoters’ written materials, one of their selling points relates to a claim that Ketchum firefighters are always first on the scene in Sun Valley as Ketchum has full-time personnel around the clock. Of course such a claim is absolutely false and misleading, like much of their other materials.

I pointed this out to Dave Chase the day after he put it on their website and suggested he not mislead the public. After two weeks, when he still hadn’t corrected it, I sent an email to the citizens of Sun Valley pointing out the false and misleading information. Surprisingly, a day or so after that email exposed them, the promoters updated their website. What really concerns me is the promoters are more than happy to provide and then leave misleading information out in the public until challenged. Unfortunately, there is just not enough time in the day to challenge and correct everything they put out. In a recent Guest Letter, they proudly claim that since no one has challenged some of their misleading analysis, it is “noteworthy.”

Pardon me, but as a wise man once told me, “My silence does not necessarily confirm my agreement.” Fortunately, Sun Valley is full of many wise men and women.

Click here for details on the review of Health and Safety Distortion Issues

Municipal Consolidation – Is Bigger Always Better?

Consolidation of cities is a rare event. Research shows that more often than not, consolidation attempts fail. Historical records of those events are very revealing. Likewise, historical records of those consolidations that do succeed are also very helpful when evaluating something with which no elected officials here have any experience.

In our state, there have been no city consolidations under the current Idaho consolidation laws, which were enacted in 1967. In 1962, a small suburb of Pocatello, Alameda, at its own request, was annexed into Pocatello. Research into state records reveals that no cities in Idaho have ever consolidated since Idaho became a state in 1890.

In researching the literature, we have found some very interesting information that confirms what the citizens and taxpayers of Sun Valley have been saying all along about this consolidation effort:

“The voters seem to be saying they want their government to be both small and local, where they can more easily influence its policies and monitor its activities. And they want it to operate in the most cost-efficient manner possible.”

It goes to show that Sun Valley’s voters are a lot smarter than the promoters think they are.

It is worth noting that in the event of a successful consolidation, the election of a new Mayor and Council for the new City of “Ketchum” will be determined by a vote of the combined voters of both former cities (~68.5% from Ketchum and ~31.5% from Sun Valley).

I speak for and with many of my fellow citizens when I say we like our local government small and close to the people. We like to talk to our local officials. We like to choose our local officials and hold them accountable. We like to know what they think and that they will be responsive to our needs. We like to know that they will listen and maybe change their minds once in a while. We like to know that they have a little history with our community. We like that they show up and attend meetings, that they are seen in the community. That they give back to the community. We like that they are not perfect. They are knowledgeable, they are honest, they come prepared, without an agenda, they are transparent. They are thinking about the community for the long-run.

 Click here for details on the research on Municipal Consolidation Issues

 Motivation – Using Non-Profits:

Shortly after the annexation proposal was announced, I was curious how the promoters were going to obtain broad support for the idea. I started to investigate, and the first thing I came across was their efforts to use some of our wonderful non-profit organizations to sell the annexation. It appears to be one of the motivating factors.

At the same time, the promoters made an unsubstantiated claim that they could save the taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million by doing the annexation. But they failed to show how they were going to accomplish those savings, explaining that would be decided by some future Council.

As you will see in the link below, the promoters contemplate various uses of the hypothetical tax savings for certain non-profit organizations. Spending the “saved” tax money this way would surely not make government more cost efficient. Some of these ideas are certainly nice and could help the community, but financing them through an unsustainable level of tax savings and the destruction of a stable government, borders on recklessness. Further, they won’t even promise to return any of the hypothetical “savings” back to the taxpayers.

Click here for details on research regarding Using Non-Profits