Sue Kempf
Our summary
Defends the bidding process and budget approval.
“We had a good bidding process. We took the lowest bid. We're under budget on the project. And so that's my role.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 42:21
Selected exchanges from the supplied, speaker-labeled transcript. Caption errors and filler were edited by its preparer; these are excerpts from that cleaned text, not a recording-verified verbatim transcript. Part 2 timestamps restart at zero.
Moderator premises and candidate claims are attributed, not independently established facts. Only clearly identified speakers are quoted here. Forum statements do not change whether a candidate submitted the Advocates questionnaire.
Sue Kempf · Incumbent
Recalling the parking-structure vote
Moderator’s question: Incumbents: Did you support taxpayers paying for a $13 million parking structure on the Presbyterian Church property?
“I don't even remember the vote.”
Sue Kempf · Part 2 · 3:42
Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi each answered “No” at 3:41 and 3:47. Kempf did not give a yes-or-no answer. The transcript does not identify the meeting or establish her recorded vote; the minutes and roll call are needed to confirm it.
Sue Kempf’s candidate page →Promenade: contract scrutiny
What oversight did incumbents perform, and what would challengers do differently?
Incumbents · 3
Mark Orgill
Our summary
Says procurement rules limit leeway. At 42:19, answers yes when asked whether the City can reject all bids.
“You have very little leeway to get in there and question various different elements on how they got there.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 41:36
Alex Rounaghi
Our summary
Acknowledges that more scrutiny was needed; says he does not remember the contract approval date.
“We should have been more diligent in asking about the line-by-line items as it relates to it.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 41:05
Challengers · 6
Ashley Cintas
Our summary
Would scrutinize line items and question apparently excessive costs.
“And as city council, this isn't our money; this is taxpayer money, and we should be scrutinizing every single line item.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 44:41
Laura Parisi
Our summary
Would require understandable cost breakdowns when preparing the RFP.
“I would get involved at the beginning. I would start with the request for proposal, the RFP.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 45:14
Nick Aronoff
Our summary
Would scrutinize unusually low bids and strengthen oversight from the start.
“I think we should see red flags when bids are significantly lower than others.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 46:29
Edward Bayuk
Our summary
Would rebid; emphasizes staff and city-manager responsibility.
“The low bidder gets the award, but you can also rebid it — and I know that from doing a lot of construction work.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 45:49
Joy Berry
Our summary
Calls for detailed contractor pricing shared with Council and residents.
“And there's no reason why there wasn't more due diligence.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 44:00
Karen Martin
Our summary
Reports consulting other agencies and would question staff and counsel before approval.
“So how I would do it is I would question staff, and I would question legal counsel, before I would approve that type of budget.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 1 · 43:21
Kempf’s budget explanation
“The budget for the promenade was $5.5 million plus $1.2 million for contingency, which adds up to $6.7 million, and right now we're running at $6.2 million.”
Sue Kempf · Part 1 · 47:39
At 48:06, the moderator disputed whether that comparison included earlier design, plans and temporary improvements. This exchange does not settle the total cost from inception.
“I didn't formally survey the businesses.”
Sue Kempf · Part 1 · 49:17
Kempf said she speaks with businesses regularly and does not have a spreadsheet of survey results.
Promenade costs, written answers and public record →Finances: what would they cut?
The final question requested three specific cuts before higher taxes. These are summaries of the closing answers, not verified savings estimates.
Incumbents
Mark Orgill: Consultants; review facilities and St. Catherine’s opportunities, with recreation at Lang Park. Named two main areas. Part 2 · 1:21:24
Sue Kempf: Questions some consulting spending and calls for careful cuts. Also argues the City has a revenue problem. Did not name three specific cuts. Part 2 · 1:23:34
Alex Rounaghi: Parking contract transaction costs; lower-use on-demand transit periods; additional EV charging stations. Distinguishes existing changes from potential cuts. Part 2 · 1:26:09
Challengers
Ashley Cintas: Review discretionary contracts, consultants, lower-priority capital and staffing workloads; monthly budget-to-actual reporting. Part 2 · 1:35:41
Laura Parisi: Consultants, including investment consultants; salaries and organizational layers where possible; legal fees. Part 2 · 1:37:46
Nick Aronoff: Fewer consultants and litigation costs; questions a proposed additional assistant city manager. Part 2 · 1:28:35
Edward Bayuk: Department efficiency and city-manager accountability; state funding. Did not name three specific expenditure cuts. Part 2 · 1:19:15
Joy Berry: Outside consultants; new projects and capital outlays; legal spending. Part 2 · 1:33:12
Karen Martin: Lifetime costs, opportunity costs and spending tied to results. Did not name three specific cuts. Part 2 · 1:31:09
Staff reports: options and trade-offs
Incumbents · 3
Sue Kempf
Our summary
Describes existing meetings and scrutiny; does not explicitly commit to replacing recommendations.
“So there's a lot of scrutiny on those staff reports, and I have a lot of discussions with staff, both after the staff report has been written, with my comments, or before.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:03:17
Mark Orgill
Our summary
Supports options while defending the reports’ existing thoroughness.
“Yes, I would support objective options and pros and cons. However, to that point, they are thorough.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:03:02
Alex Rounaghi
Our summary
Emphasizes staff questioning, trade-offs and budgeting by outcomes.
“I also like to look at trade-offs, to your point, Jennifer.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:03:40
Challengers · 6
Ashley Cintas
Our summary
Calls reports one-sided and insufficiently detailed.
“So the entire format needs to change.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:02:14
Laura Parisi
Our summary
Supports objective analysis and staff training if needed.
“Definitely an objective analysis, and, if need be, putting together some training sessions.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:02:27
Nick Aronoff
Our summary
Also wants presentations available before the meeting.
“Yeah, we need improvement in the staff reports, whether it's multiple options or pros and cons.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:04:07
Edward Bayuk
Our summary
Focuses on historical records; does not explicitly answer the options-versus-recommendations question.
“Garbage in, garbage out. And historical records are needed — not for just two years, but 10 years, 20 years.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:02:33
Joy Berry
Our summary
Supports options rather than staff reaching conclusions for decision-makers.
“They should present options.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:02:03
Karen Martin
Our summary
Wants clear choices to reject, approve or continue an item.
“And I do think that they should not have one resolution that is just for approval.”
Supplied cleaned transcript · Part 2 · 1:04:26
Civility and allegations of harassment
The moderator alleged pressure over campaign signs and attacks by incumbents or allies. The forum exchange does not establish those allegations. Only the incumbents were invited to answer before the moderator moved on.
Mark Orgill · Incumbent
“No. I do not have anything to do with, or talk to anybody about, going after any candidates.”
Part 2 · 1:15:00
Sue Kempf · Incumbent
“If someone wants to put a sign up in their store, I don't really care.”
Part 2 · 1:15:13
Alex Rounaghi · Incumbent
“They did posts that I thought were a little bit unkind, and I said that I didn't agree with it and I didn't like it.”
Part 2 · 1:15:35
Rounaghi said he contacted the Democratic Club and does not control it. Orgill and Kempf also described attacks directed at them. Nick Aronoff returned to the harassment allegations in his closing remarks at 1:28:35.