The Bainbridge Island Postscript

Nightmare on Main Street

2008-10-24T20:20:00.000-07:00

[Cue lightning crash and booming thunder]

Something wicked this way comes, and its coming is foretold in a seemingly innocuous grant application filed by the Mayor just last week. In many ways, everything we have written about over the last year has culminated in this story. Improper influence of a select group of private interests in City policy making, wasteful City spending, the hijacking of Winslow Tomorrow , double speak and lack of transparency by the City, withholding of information from City Council and a complete disregard of community priorities have all played a role in the City’s latest attempt to reanimate the corpse of Winslow Tomorrow.

Streetscape Lives!

Even before the current global economic crisis, back when our own local financial woes were first, and finally, being disclosed, it was understood that the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape was dead. With no money to fund critical road repairs and other important community priorities, the Administration announced that the only portion of the project that would go forward would be “a barebones utility project”. Even that simple replacement of the three utilities deemed inadequate or failing by City staff and consultants has remained highly controversial due to the lack of Winslow Way property owner participation in costs, the question of whether a lesser fix would suffice and the disproportionate burden that will be placed on 2,200 utility ratepayers.

The City Administration, with the help of four Councilpersons (Peters, Snow, Stoknes and Franz), has nonetheless continued to press forward with the utility project, calling it the “highest priority capital project” on the Island. They have argued that it is a matter of public safety and that it must go forward regardless of our financial circumstances. Why then is this “barebones” “emergency” utility replacement project – now referred to as the “The Winslow Way Reconstruction Project” – being described in the City’s application for an economic development grant as necessary to “stimulate private reinvestment” in the Core District?

When listing on the grant application which infrastructure improvements will be made during the project, it is not “replacement of failing sewer pipes” that tops the list, but rather “widening sidewalks”. And the list goes on to include other non-essential Winslow Tomorrow-esque elements including “accessibility and intersection functionality” and “enhancing landscaping”.

It would appear that despite the gravity of the City’s financial circumstances, having cited the need to cut funding for most community priorities, having co-opted the federal funds awarded to another decade old public safety project – Wing Point Way – and planning to hit utility rate payers with as much as a 44% rate increase, the Administration is still pursuing funds to “enhance the livability and vitality of Winslow Way”, and is doing so in the name of downtown revitalization.

The Phantoms of Winslow Way

City staff and officials have long dismissed as improbable citizen concerns that Winslow Tomorrow projects and zoning changes will result in an imminent and radical redevelopment of Winslow Way. Throughout the process, planning staff have successfully calmed any such fears raised before the Planning Commission with repeated reassurances that such redevelopment will not happen overnight and will not result in an urban canyon of three-story (or taller) mixed-use buildings along our Main Street. Yet the City now argues that not only will Winslow Way soon be the epicenter of a massive redevelopment effort, but that we must use City (and State, and Federal, and utility rate payer) funds to ensure its success.

The Mayor’s argument for the Economic Development District (EDD) grant is that we want to direct new growth into Winslow. The City argues that our Comprehensive Plan mandates this and that our “growth strategy goals cannot be accomplished without significant improvements to the existing infrastructure of downtown” – failing to recognize, of course, that such growth could be directed elsewhere in Winslow such as along Madison, High School Road, SR305 or the Government Way property.

Why the myopic focus on Winslow Way? Why threaten to destroy our community’s small town sense of place with the prospect of three-story plus mixed-use buildings when there are far more appropriate locations for such structures? And why not heed the voice of the community that has been so vocal about the sanctity of our Main Street and which ranked “downtown planning” as 30^th out of 32 community priorities on the City’s own survey?

The answer is clear in the City’s responses on the grant application, which only verify what many have suspected for years – that the interests of two private corporations have dictated downtown policy and planning for at least the last two years, if not longer. These responses clearly show that the true impetus for the proposed Winslow Way utility upgrades is to facilitate redevelopment planned by Town and Country Markets and Haggar-Scribner LLC.

Apparently the City, which has long feigned ignorance of the extent and timing of these planned redevelopment projects, is intimately familiar with many of the key details. According to the grant application, Haggar-Scribner Properties, which has now reportedly accumulated at least seven contiguous parcels over the last few years, and which now controls half the land on the north side of the heart of Winslow Way, has shared a “redevelopment proposal” with the City. The proposal includes an expanded clinic, retail services, office space, housing and “associated parking” for an estimated cost of $40-60 million. Across the street, Town and Country Markets plan to invest $20-30 million in their own expansion project.

When were the details and timelines of these plans communicated to the City? Under what circumstances? Certainly not in the public eye. According to our sources, representatives from these two entities and their supporters have met privately with City staff and officials countless times over the last several years. They have served on committees, advocated for zoning changes and were central figures in Winslow Tomorrow. They were the impetus behind the doomed parking garage study that we will be paying interest on for many years to come. Even when not physically present, their influence has been a constant pressure on the City Council and Planning Commission as City staff, the recently departed editor of our local paper of record and other advocates for Downtown redevelopment have repeatedly raised the spectre of “losing our anchor tenants if you don’t act now”.

The Monster that Ate Winslow

The cruel hypocrisy that has followed this project from its inception is the City’s claim, repeated in the current grant application, that Streetscape improvements and subsequent redevelopment will help us retain our small local businesses. In fact, the application argues that this project is “critical” to retaining them. But as Rod Stevens, a development consultant who specializes in revitalization, and many others have argued, those small businesses not killed off by the Streetscape construction itself will surely perish under the inevitable increases in rent that will follow redevelopment.

Another twisted irony is the City’s argument on the grant application that grant funds will help offset painful utility rate increases for Winslow residents. This creative response to the question of how the project will “significantly benefit an area experiencing or threatened with substantial economic distress” was less than forthright given the fact that it is the City itself that has chosen to charge the bulk of the project to those households unfortunate enough to be served by City utilities, while giving a free ride to Winslow Way property owners.

The City never directly addresses the issue of benefiting property owners’ financial participation – or lack thereof – in the project, though it does cite “private donations” as a portion of the necessary local matching funds. But this references the $1 million that Winslow Way property owners have offered to pay, not for any portion of the "necessary" utility replacements, but for the aesthetic improvement of under grounding power lines.

What then are the City’s sources for matching local funds? The City cites: “Utility revenue, the City’s general fund, state grant funds, federal grant funds and private donations.” The utilities currently have no reserve funds, so this money will come in the form of utility bonds that have yet to be issued. The general fund, by all accounts, is at best 100% encumbered, and at worst in the red, so any “general fund” money will come from future Councilmanic Debt that would have to be successfully issued on the current municipal bond market. It’s hard to imagine how other state and federal grants could be counted as local matching funds, especially if they each require local matching funds as well.

Death by Omission

While the Administration might successfully defend some of its less than accurate statements as standard grant writing spin, there’s no escaping the glaring omissions and misstatements in its response to the application question on “Community Support”. The application asks the applicant to describe “community involvement in and support for the project”. Not only does the City’s response fail to mention anything about the long and vocal opposition to the Streetscape project and the larger vision it advances (including two petitions signed by more than a thousand citizens), but it mischaracterizes the entire Winslow Tomorrow process.

Apparently it was not enough to claim that the process resulted in a plan that embraced large-scale redevelopment, which it did not. Now the endeavor is described as having been formed by “a group of citizens interested in the re-development potential of the downtown area”. Tell that to the dozens of citizens who thought they were working on a plan to limit the impact of “inevitable” growth on their community.

What is the ultimate goal of the Mayor, her Administration and the Councilors that support her in pursuing the redevelopment of Winslow Way? A wise citizen once asked why, if the underlying motivation is a desire to increase City revenues, we do not have an open and honest conversation about that. Perhaps it is because the type of development that is projected for downtown is primarily residential. A developer’s return on urban multistory mixed-use projects lies in the condos on the upper floors. The retail space below is practically an afterthought. In order to fill that retail space with successful tax paying tenants, there must be demand.

The City’s application claims that retail space is in short supply, but in fact vacancies abound. The City claims that our community will need an additional 350,000 square feet of retail space by 2025. That would be equivalent to more than the total square footage of Seattle's Pacific Place, or three and a half Safeway Shopping centers. Given that there is little danger of Costco, Target or Home Depot relocating to the Island, it doesn’t take an urban planner to realize that those projections are absurd.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of Island citizens, who may or may not agree on the inevitability or desirability of growth generally, do not want growth directed onto Winslow Way. Given current economic conditions, it's safe to assume that an overwhelming majority would also agree that now is not the time for big capital projects of any kind. Unfortunately, now is an ideal time for the City to slip past the community any number of unpopular policy changes or project approvals. The drama of an intense national election and economic crisis has the full attention of the community and the Holidays are around the corner. We must nonetheless find a way to awaken the silent majority. If we fail, this nightmare is sure to become our reality.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

The Herd and the Hustle

2008-08-16T22:49:00.000-07:00

When this article written by City Hall watcher and commentator R.D. Stevens came our way, we thought it was something the whole community needed to read. The topic – our City's inability to manage major Public Works projects – is especially timely, with the Administration and Council majority poised to issue another controversial bond on August 27th, and the Winslow Way Streetscape funding debate far from settled.

Published with the author's permission.

* * * * * * *

A Nice Place on Puget Sound

Imagine that you and some friends and relatives have a nice place on Puget Sound. You’ve lived there for a number of years, and one day your hired property man tells you the sewage treatment system needs repairs and that he’s worried that the State won’t relicense it the next time around. He estimates the cost of the upgrades at $4300. You tell him to go ahead with the design.

The following year he estimates the cost at $9500, not including $750 for design. A year after that, he tells you the engineers are still designing, they’ve only completed 30 percent of the design, and they now need about twice as much to finish.

Yet another year goes by while your man and the engineers go off to re-design the project. He comes back to you for more money, again for design, and this time including construction management services as well, something you thought he was going to take care of. You feel like you have no choice but to sign for more work.

Five years into the project, he tells you the cost is now over $14,000. You’re not done yet, you know you will be paying more, and you wonder how things got so out of control. Then you realize you were never really in control in the first place.

Multiply by A Thousand

Multiply this by a factor of a thousand and you have the story of our City’s wastewater treatment plant at the base of Wing Point. This is the largest project in the City’s history it is still not done. What started out as a $4.5 million project is now projected to cost $14.3 million.

Based on industry averages for similar projects, it appears that the Administration has overspent on engineering by about $750,000 to $1 million. And because of delays along the way, inflation in construction costs probably added another $750,000 to $1 million. All told, the cost of bad management is probably $1.5 to $2.0 million.

What Went Wrong?

My statements here are based on facts gleaned from the Administration’s response to my public records request for cost estimates and public meeting notes. ( I have included a concise history of the project at the end of this article). What is most surprising is the almost total lack of written management reporting from the Public Works Department to elected officials. There are many Power Point presentations put together by the consultants, mostly focused on the technical aspects of the project, but these do not include all the costs – like their own fees.

It appears that few Council members have known what the total cost will be, for the numbers they have quoted were for construction costs only, and have not included engineering – a sizable expense. Nonetheless, once the project was well underway, and after Public Works had entered into detailed design, some Council members did manage to at least raise the question, “Is this the right project?”

The Administration seems to lack the skills to track variances in time and budget on major projects. Daniel Smith and Gayle Seyl, two citizens working independently, and each with backgrounds in forensic accounting and fraud investigation, have made separate public records requests for reports containing this sort of information, and have yet to obtain them. Council member Kim Brackett has made similar requests on capital projects and staff has told her that they would get back to her in six months. These reports are the basic information that any supervisor or board needs to exercise oversight and control, and our Council does not get them.

There are many similarities here between the management of this project and the management of the Heery work on Winslow Tomorrow. The Public Works department has been in charge of both projects. Both involved contracts with large engineering firms. On both, Public Works moved ahead on detailed design without first fully exploring the alternatives and making Council fully aware of the details of these options. And on both projects, much of the money spent on professional engineers went into meetings that might have been avoided if the Public Works had taken the time to clearly outline and get policy support for project parameters before engaging in detailed design.

Making It Better

In situations like this Joe Honick, a City Hall watcher and concerned citizen, always wants to know how we can improve things.

First, there are basic questions of staff openness and trust. The solution to these problems is obvious.

Second, we need basic accounting and management reporting – the stuff of professionalism. This includes comprehensive and concise written reports that explain the rationale for a project, and the real options for carrying it out, including the costs, benefit, risks, time and degree of difficulty of each. These reports would give our elected officials the information they (and not staff) need to decide which options are best. These reports should include a clear statement of all of the costs, and not seek to lessen the perception of these by revealing only those directly for construction. It is amazing how, on major projects, and changes to these projects, the Council is willing to accept information just hours or minutes before Council meetings (or get no advance written information at all) and will then make quick decisions, all based on a sense of urgency conveyed by staff and the Mayor.

After the project is underway, Council should expect and ask for status reports on the larger projects, which should provide detail on which items are off budget or schedule, and why. These reports should be signed by the Public Works Director, and not his subordinates. The City of Bainbridge Island is small enough that he should know the details of major projects.

Learning from Past Mistakes

Four members of the City Council still want to press ahead next year with the replacement of utilities under Winslow Way. Here are the questions that Council members should raise now, before getting in another “herd and hustle” of rising costs:

Do we know what all of the costs will be, including the final bill for engineering and construction management?

Do we know who will be responsible for bringing the project in time and on budget, and what management reports they will submit along the way?

Given the past history of spending and over-runs on the wastewater treatment plant and Winslow Tomorrow, does the senior staff of the Public Works Department have the skills to oversee this project?

If the project goes over budget, how will we pay for it?

What tasks will be done by engineers already on salary, and what will be contracted out?

Given the problems of the past, the operative words should be “Show me."

___________________________________

Key Milestones in the Wastewater Treatment Plant

4/13/03 Esvelt Engineering estimates needed improvements at $4.368 million, including $.585 for initial UV work and $3.783 million for additional upgrades. These estimates include neither design nor construction management.

8/11/04 City signs $756,219 contract with Tetra Tech to prepare engineering drawings to 100% design level.

11/30/04 Public Works stages community workshop; neighbors complain that they were given only one day’s notice to attend, and that few received it. Power Point slides from presentation put cost of upgrades at $6.8 million, and make no mention that these costs do not include engineering.

8/5/05 Vanir Construction, a sub-contractor to Tetra Tech, estimates completion by 1/7/08, and construction costs alone at $9.6 million. Public Works memo to city council puts cost of Class A reclaimed water at $1.5 million (about the same or lower cost than is now being contemplated for simply extending the outfall farther into the Sound.)

7/25/05 City Finance Director Elray Konkel writes a citizen, “Current customers are protected today and (are) intended to be protected in the future by System Participation fees which are applied to new development… The current capacity of the plant is considered sufficient to accommodate the current and future growth within the boundaries of the Sewer district.”

11/05 City Council raises question of whether space constraints have significantly added to costs, asks “Is this the right project?”

11/14/05 Public Words director Randy Witt sends out emails asking for “bar napkin” level of detail on costs of alternative actions, and asks if the State Department of Ecology will allow the City to defer upgrades if the City instead brought water and biosolids to Class A levels. Tetra Tech writes Public Works, “There is no Ecology deadline for completing the improvements in the City’s engineering report”, and Lance Newcombe, then an engineer with the City, speculates that the City might have bought time for the upgrade work by having added UV treatment.

8/09/06 City caps work on current Tetra Tech contract at $730,000, noting that cost over-runs and design revisions had led to only 30% of the design being completed, even though 100% had been specified. City signs “Phase 2” contract with Tetra Tech for $690,300, bringing total contract with Tetra Tech to $1.42 million. Although the new contract is labeled “Phase 2”, it is essentially a re-write for design revisions and for work not completed in the first contract.

8/15/06 Public Works tells PWT subcommittee that construction will likely be completed in mid to late 2008.

1/19/07 Public Works estimates construction cost at $12.419 million.

2/14/07 City amends Tetra Tech contract for design revisions, increasing bringing total to $1.88 million through 2007 only. The proposed contract amendment would have brought the total to $2.32 million.

11/29/07 City rebids work for $9.051 million. Although Public Works claims that higher engineering costs helped lower the cost of the second bid, it is not clear if the higher engineering costs were truly attributable to the bidding, and if the bids came in lower because the second-round bidders knew the bid amounts from the first round or because the economy was visibly slowing.

2/27/08 City increases Tetra Tech contract by $207,366, bringing total amount paid and obligated to $2.08 million. Based on amount proposed but not signed for the first amendment, there will likely be a future amendments to this contract of at least $233,000, which would bring it to $2.320 million.

6/25/08 Public Works writes memo to City Council recapping financial history of the project, but giving few details and little explanation of the reasons for the delays or cost increases. Various internal worksheets put the overall cost, including UV work, at $14.3 million, a three- to four-fold increase from the original estimates prepared in 2003.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Get Your Pitchfork, Ma

2008-05-14T12:21:00.001-07:00

In early 2007, the City entered into a nearly $1 million bloated Phase I Winslow Way Streetscape contract with Heery International that was at least as much about selling the Streetscape project to the public as it was about the initial design process. For a City of our size, this was a reckless use of taxpayer money under any circumstances. But now, at a time when our financial reality dictates that the City bite off no more than one or two capital projects a year, when the City has already undertaken a $12.8 million sewer plant upgrade, when roads across the Island are long overdue for repair and preservation work and budget cuts will send so many community organizations home empty handed, the $1.4 million Phase II Heery contract before Council tonight is simply appalling.

Just take a look at last year’s Phase I contract and Phase II now before Council and prepare to be amazed. Follow the links here and here and read the contracts for yourselves. You can probably skip the fill-in-the blank contracts (that’s right, million dollar fill-in-the-blank contracts) and just review the fee matrices in the attachments. This is one of those situations where you don’t need our help – the documents are fairly self-explanatory and should make any taxpayer cringe.

We are paying consultants to talk to consultants, consultants to talk to staff and consultants to talk to the public. We are paying consultants to oversee consultants who are considering the issues, paying them to create documents and presentation materials memorializing the recommendations, then paying them to address Council to explain the recommendations. We are paying for workshops, charettes, roundtables, coffees, graphics, displays and banners. And to top it off, we are paying consultants to prepare the very invoices they will use to bill the City.

Probably the most jaw-dropping statistic is how much the City will have paid for Streetscape related public relations work after the completion of Heery’s Phase II contract. A conservative estimate – tallying up only those tasks listed in the two contracts that are clearly public relations related – would be just over $229,000. In other words, the same amount that was to be spent on the Senior Center renovation this year or more than enough to cover what was to be spent on trail acquisition and construction this year – items expected to be reduced or eliminated from the 2009 (or 2008) budget.

Looking at a recent list of other possible spending reductions prepared by the Administration, we get a glimpse of what else might be sacrificed in the desperate attempt to fund the Streetscape. Among the cuts proposed, some will impact public safety such as eliminating an emergency satellite phone, delaying the hire of two new patrol officers, delaying repair to patrol cars and eliminating the Island’s Emergency Preparedness Coordinator.

Another interesting cut would be the elimination of the “Wyatt Water Main Upgrade”. The result of cutting this item would be “continued low pressure and flow along Wyatt between Madison and Grow”. Would that be fire flow by any chance? That may be a very relevant question as it is also noted that this water main, which runs along an area destined for perhaps the largest future redevelopment effort in Winslow (including the Government Way surplused navy housing), “may be upgraded without City expense by future development”. Apparently some developers are more equal than others.

The Administration appears to be really scraping the barrel with it’s proposed cuts, yet it refuses to tighten the belt on the Heery contract. Consider the proposal to reduce the frequency of sewer main cleanings to once every three years (already down from an annual cleaning as of 2004) to save a paltry $5,000, while at the same time advocating for spending more than $40,000 for three Fourth of July Streetscape booths over a three-year period under the Heery Contracts.

And why are we paying Heery, an international uber-firm, to manage the project at all? Why not handle project management and public relations in house? “Administration and Project Management” will cost the City $96, 972 under Phase II, along with $28,773 in “Reimbursable Expenses”. What does this entail? Well, under the Phase I contract, and an earlier version of Phase II, the individual tasks were line-itemed along with their associated fees. Under the latest iteration of the Phase II contract, the generic term “Administration and Project Management” appears under each of the four work phases of the contract along with an all inclusive fee. On page 7 of the scope of work (Attachment A), the functions included in Administration and those included in Project Management are broadly detailed.

We think it might have been more useful to see a breakdown of the costs associated with each administration and management task. One of the more interesting fees listed in the Phase I contract was $24,656 to “Provide monthly report to COBI with updated budget, schedules, and summary of work during period along with monthly invoice. Recurring, 8 months”. In other words, Heery billed the City over $3,000 per month for a monthly summary and bill. Another interesting item from the Phase I contract was the $8,928 authorized for the presentation of the 30% Streetscape design (the final product of Phase I) to Council. If one assumes a 60 minute presentation, it was to cost the City $148 per minute to hear the results of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in design work it had paid for.

Looking back at that list of proposed cuts, we find that $30,000 could be saved by finishing the Waterfront Master Plan with staff rather than consultants. What’s even more amazing than the fact that our in house planning staff is capable of planning and design (who knew?) is the idea that there would be any question of whether consultants would continue to be hired to do anything that the City’s existing staff could adequately accomplish. Surely with no cash and no bonding capacity the City’s goal should be to find and harness the talent within, just as any reasonable homeowner would do-it-himself or go without when times are tough.

Where should our City Council go from here? Eliminate Heery and eliminate the Streetscape elements still included in the project, and they will be eliminating many, if not all, of the questions surrounding the legality of billing the project to the Utility ratepayers, and will be approaching a financially sound solution for this project. It does not appear that a majority of the Council is likely to find this path on it’s own. It's up to the community to pick up our pitchforks (figurative or virtual) and head to tonight’s Council meeting, by foot or by e-mail, to help perhaps just one of our lost Councilors find his or her way back to the realm of reason and responsibility.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Talking Around the Questions

2008-04-27T22:29:00.000-07:00

Preliminary results. Raw data. Tabulations. Draft copies. The long awaited community priorities survey is in, but judging from the volume of information and the myriad of ways in which it could be interpreted or spun, it looks like the effort to decipher public opinion has just begun.

We have written before about the distinction between the "scientifically valid" random phone survey and the not so reliable self-selecting on-line survey. Judging from what we've heard and seen we can be confident that the on-line survey has no value from a numerical perspective, as several sources have reported taking the survey multiple times by simply disabling cookies or by using a different IP address. And quite frankly, based on the wording of some of the phone survey questions, we have to wonder about that one as well.

Only one thing appears to be certain, and that is that there will surely be some creative attempts by Winslow Way Streetscape supporters to explain how citizens voting for "safe and efficient utilities" and "maintaining existing roads" were expressing support for the Streetscape despite their low ranking of "downtown planning" and the prevalence of road maintenance and utilities issues Island-wide.

Interested citizens might want to arm themselves with the actual data generated by the two surveys in preparation for their formal presentation to Council and subsequent press. The basic results of both surveys are available as attachments to the upcoming City Council agenda for the April 30th special meeting. However, what is not included are the narrative portions of the on-line survey. Fortunately, a friend of the PostScript forwarded those results to us. We have uploaded a reformatted copy of the first narrative question "What are the top three hopes/desires or issues (if any) about local government that concern you?" It might seem hypocritical to disparage the on-line survey in one breath and in another offer the results, but throwing out the numerical value of the survey need not negate to value of reading the unedited concerns and of Island residents. The proportions may be off, but the flavor is still there.

Go here for the on-line data and here for the phone data that are attached to this weeks Council agenda. For narrative answers we have uploaded the following survey questions:

To read responses to the question of why respondents answered as they did to the question "How would you rate the quality of life on Bainbridge Island now?" (question #3) go here.

To read responses to the question of why respondents answered as they did to the question of "Thinking ahead five years from now, how would you rate the quality of life on Bainbridge Island?" (question #5) go here.

To read responses to the first time (question #1) survey takers were asked "What are the top three hopes/desires or issues (if any) about local government that concern you?" go here.

To read responses to the second time (question #30) survey takers were asked "What are the top three hopes/desires or issues (if any) about local government that concern you?" go here.

To read responses to the question of why respondents chose the two issues they believed jeopardize quality of life on the Island (question #7) go here.

To read responses to the question inviting comments on zoning and planning (question # 9) go here.

To read responses to the question inviting comments on City infrastructure (question # 17) go here.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

A Roadmap to Leadership

2008-04-25T14:01:00.000-07:00

Once again, we find greater understanding of the City's current circumstances by looking back over how we got here and listening to those who were on the front lines. Former Councilperson Bob Scales demonstrates with this paper, circulated earlier this week, that his commitment to the Island's well being remains strong even in "retirement". Thank you Bob for sharing these valuable insights, reminding us of recent history soon forgotten and helping not only the Council, but the community find its bearings in the chaos of City Hall.

Published with the author's permission.

_________________________

Bob’s 10 Step Program for Municipal Financial Success

Proposal for the Bainbridge Island City Council

from Bob Scales

Bainbridge Island City Councilmember 2004-2007

1. Trust but verify

2. Don’t ignore City Council policies and priorities

3. Sell surplus City property

4. Don’t raise taxes or rates in a recession

5. Use consultants sparingly and cautiously

6. Keep your promises.

7. Don’t break the law

8. Be an advocate

9. Don’t make excuses – make decisions

10. Find out what went wrong

1. Trust but verify

In October 2007 the Mayor presented her proposed 2008 budget to the City Council. This was the most abbreviated budget document we had ever seen. We went from the normal 3” binder to a ½” binder. The Council expressed concerns about the lack of detailed information in the budget document and we questioned how we would be able to produce a final budget from the limited data the Mayor gave us. We were told by the Finance Director, City Administrator and Mayor that they had prepared the document by following all of the Council’s budget directions and therefore we did not need detailed information and should just approve the budget as proposed.

The Mayor’s proposed budget had $9 million in councilmanic debt. We learned in December 2007 that it was actually $10 million in debt. Virtually every project in the 2008 CIP was funded with debt. The Council felt that the City could not sustain this level of debt and that it was not appropriate to fund projects like routine road maintenance with debt. We asked the administration to cut $2.5 million out of the operating budget and the Council cut $3.5 million out of the 2008 capital program. The administration’s reaction to the cuts was very strong. The finance director accused the Council of mismanaging the City’s finances. The City Administrator told the Council that we just ruined months of staff work. The Council was told that the City’s finances were sound and there was no need to cut the operating budget. The Council did not bow to this pressure and passed a budget with only $4 million in debt. The Council went through a very good exercise during the budget process and decided that what remained in the 2008 CIP was worth being funded by debt if necessary.

Just 3 months after the budget was passed the Mayor and Finance Director informed the Council that the City would be $2 million in the red in 2008. Imagine the hole the City would be in if the Council had approved the Mayor’s proposed budget. Unfortunately the 2008 budget does not appear to be worth the paper it is written on.

Before the Council takes any action on amending the 2008 budget you should verify what you are being told by the Administration. The revenue numbers they gave the Council in December were wrong. Why would you believe the numbers they are giving you now just 3 months later? The finance department should give the Council and the community a detailed assessment of the City’s finances in a form that can be easily understood. It’s not good enough for them to say just trust us. Verify what they are telling you.

2. Don’t ignore City Council policies and priorities

The City Council has never had a very good institutional memory. Councilmembers change and motions and actions taken by Councils in the past tend to get lost or forgotten. There is no one in the City who is the keeper of the Council’s priorities and actions. This would be one argument for having a dedicated staff person for the Council.

The Council has the ability to change any action taken by prior Councils. However, until they do so, they are bound by the policies established by prior Councils. It is frustrating for me to see this Council ignore or disregard policies set by the last year’s City Council.

Here are a couple of examples:

Winslow Streetscape – In the 2008 budget process the Council approved funding for the next phase of the Winslow Streetscape project. However, the Council also said that we would not approve the contracts until the administration presented a detailed financial plan for funding the entire project. The administration was told to consider all possible funding options including an LID. From what I have seen the Mayor is proposing a $1.3 million contract with Heery to be paid for entirely with utility revenue bonds. I have not seen any plan for funding the entire project. Unless the Council changes its policy, you should not approve this contract until you have approved a funding strategy for the entire project.

Surplus of Open Space – The City Council placed a strict condition on the purchase of the Williams property. The Council required that at least $850,000 of the purchase price be raised from the sale of surplus city property. The Open Space Commission and the administration were asked to present Council with a recommended list of surplus properties by December 12, 2007. They did not meet the deadline so now this Council must act on this policy. Unfortunately the OSC and the LUC are recommending that the decision on which surplus properties to sell be deferred until next December. This amounts to ignoring and disregarding the Council’s original direction. If this Council doesn’t want the revenue then vote to change the Council’s original direction, but don’t keep deferring making a decision

3. Sell surplus City property

The City needs additional revenue to meet unexpected shortfalls in the 2008 budget. The City owns millions of dollars in property which is not being used for any meaningful public purpose. There are also open space parcels which were purchased with the clear understanding that portions could be sold to raise money for other open space purchases. In December the Council approved the sale of $850,000 of surplus city property. What is the city waiting for? Selling the Suzuki property alone could raise $3.5 million. This is a property that the City has been sitting on for years and has decided not to use for a police/court facility. I know of a family that has offered the city $200,000 to purchase a city easement next to their property. That’s money that could be put in the bank tomorrow if the city would just act on it. The City should offload surplus properties as fast as possible

4. Don’t raise taxes or rates in a recession

What should government do during a recession? Econ 101 says that government should work to stimulate the economy in a recession by increasing spending or cutting taxes or both. Now is not the time for the City to pull back on public spending or to raise taxes (like the proposed $20 car tax). The City needs to care for and improve the City’s basic infrastructure to encourage private investment and promote economic vitality. The City should maintain funding for social services, affordable housing and community development. The economic downturn will be temporary, but if the City stops investing in the community it will have long term negative impacts.

Also remember that the City raised SSWM rates 30% this year and over 100% in the last 4 years. This is a fee that affects every household and business on the island. These rates were raised to eliminate the general fund subsidy of the SSWM utility. However, it is unclear where all this new general fund money has gone. The City budget is a black hole and you never know if you will get anything tangible for your money. If the City decides to raise taxes or rates in the future, you must make certain how the new revenues will be spent and then hold the administration accountable for spending the money appropriately.

5. Use consultants sparingly and cautiously

The City’s professional services budget has mushroomed in the last few years. It wasn’t until the 2008 budget that the Council was able to make any meaningful cuts in professional services. The Administration line for many years was that professional service contracts were needed because the City did not have enough staff to complete the Council’s work plan. They used this argument to advocate for more staff because they said that these projects could be completed in house more efficiently and at a reduced cost. So the Council approved staff increases and by December 2007 the City was fully staffed and ready to roll. Beware of administration requests for additional consulting services and complaints that employees are overworked.

> To keep reading/read all "10 Steps" click here

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Funding to be Determined II

2008-04-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

At first blush, it might appear at tonight’s City Council meeting that the Administration and other Winslow Way Streetscape supporters have reconsidered their positions on the Heery International contract and are now ready to delay the project in order to seek grants and to more fully consider the City’s financial circumstances. What more could we want? But upon closer inspection, it is quite clear that this latest proposal is a feeble attempt to hold together an untenable project and to keep the project moving forward at all costs.

Phasing the Pain

An interesting memorandum (see earlier post below) has been circulating today, written yesterday by City Staff and delivered only this morning to Council, proposing to divide Phase II of the Heery contract into four phases, with a cost allocated to each phase. Construction would occur in 2010 rather than in 2009, and the City will apply for a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant in August, at the end of Phase I. There has also been discussion of applying for the Public Works Trust Fund Loan in 2009, as previously suggested by Councilpersons Brackett, Vancil and Knobloch, but until now not possible with a 2009 construction schedule.

According to the memorandum, these proposed revisions to the contract are offered to address concerns expressed about “the City’s financial status”, though it’s not at all clear how the proposed changes, or the plan to apply for grants and loans at a later date, will fully address the fundamental problems that have led to concerns expressed by the public, and many on Council, in recent weeks.

This is virtually the same contract, the same plan, with different packaging. The fact is that no matter how they try to divide it up, recombine it, stretch it out, emphasize one aspect or the other or introduce yet another red herring – today it’s the possibility of a grant or loan – they cannot force this project, as it is proposed, into a palatable form. Any potential scenario they can drum up will face the same hard realities and limitations, the most significant being that the City simply does not have a viable funding source to even pay for the design, let alone the construction of the utility portion of the project, much less any extra amenities (aka bells and whistles).

While superficially it may appear that this increasingly incremental approach to the project is more responsible, the current proposal is in fact a step in the opposite direction. If we assume that it is irresponsible to fund the design of a project that the City cannot afford to build, is it not even more irresponsible to incrementally fund a design that the City cannot afford, for a project that the City cannot afford to build? Looking at the phased plan released today, we see funding identified for Phase I, but following the costs listed for each subsequent phase, we see “Funding to be determined. Funding to be determined. Funding to be determined.”

On a Wing and a Prayer

When the full Council last visited the Heery contract, on April 9^th, it was assumed that the contract would be paid for with Councilmanic (non voter approved) bonds. Since the last regular City Council meeting, Council and Staff have been informed that the City has no more Councilmanic bonding capacity, as there is no cash available to make new debt service payments. That leaves voter approved bonds, revenue bonds, loans and grants as potential sources of funding for the Streetscape and other capital facilities projects. We have yet to hear of any proposal to ask the voters to pay for the project, and up until now, the Administration and four members of Council have been unwilling to delay the project long enough to apply for loans and grants that might be available for a later construction date. That has left Revenue Bonds on the table, which are paid for by utility rate payers, but which place stringent limitations on what portion of a project can be funded, particularly when it comes to soft costs. And there are some really mushy costs throughout the Heery contract.

As we understand it, the response to the revelation of “no bonding capacity” was a decision to place virtually the entire burden of the design and much of the construction costs onto the backs of the City’s ratepayers. We can only assume that sometime over the last few days certain members of the Council majority that support going forward at all costs (Peters, Franz, Snow and Stoknes), and/or the Administration, have realized that to do so would be legally indefensible, as no theory could support the allocation to ratepayers of any portion of the Streetscape amenities work or outreach/ public relations activities. And of the remaining costs, a large percentage will be non-engineering related soft costs with, at best, a tenuous nexus to the actual utility work. Thus, the City is left once again without a source of funding for the Streetscape design and construction, and thus arises the need to further break down the funding of the project. This phasing of the Heery contract will at the same time give the appearance of easing into the project with the ability to “walk away” at any point – in other words, it will give a false sense of security to certain members of Council, and keep together the current majority pushing the project forward.

So why not put behind us the path it took to get here and embrace the opportunity to apply for the TIB grant and maybe even the Public Works Trust Fund loan? Because the possibility of future funding does not change the City’s current financial situation. If those advocating for this latest proposal were agreeing to delay proceeding until funding was found for the design work, and at least some reliable funding was secured for construction, maybe they’d be on to something. But as it stands now, they are proposing to “stay the course” and keep moving the project forward without any clear funding source.

Let Them Eat Cake

Another red herring that will be thrown out tonight is a new plan by the Winslow Way property owners to make a $1 million “contribution” to the project in the form of an LID. Listen closely when you hear this proposal tonight, and you will learn that the money is offered only for the Streetscape “amenities” – trees, benches, nice pavement etc. – not for any portion of the essential utility repairs and upgrades that are the only reason (purportedly) that this project is being pushed to the front of the line, before all other capital projects on the Island, during these difficult financial times.

Which leads us to another fundamental flaw that continues to follow this project in all its recent forms. We have yet to hear a justification for removing this project from the annual Capital Facilities Plan process which by law the City is obligated to use to evaluate and prioritize Capital Projects each year. That process is currently underway and set to end in June. It was already improper to ask Council to approve the Heery contract prior to the CFP, but now, with the proposal that the decision points for the phased contract be before and after the CFP process, the attempt to avoid the legitimate process has left the project literally straddling the CFP in a rather absurd fashion.

Amidst these unanswered questions, under the darkness of our City’s financial forecast and still without any reference to the results of the (already completed) Community Priorities survey, Council will be asked tonight to keep the ball rolling and agree to proceed with Phase I of a revised Heery contract. No doubt we’ll hear many bemoaning what a difficult decision this will be. No, with reality breathing down our necks, it’s really quite simple. It’s time for Council to pull the plug on this sacred cow and send it back into the herd of capital improvement projects waiting for their turn at the empty public trough.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Funding to be Determined I

2008-04-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

This Memorandum was provided to City Council this morning, the same day that Council will be considering the Heery contract/ the decision to continue to fund the Winslow Way Streetscape design process. When last we checked, there was no evidence of these changes on the agenda – thus no notice to the public. We'll be working on a story addressing the memo, but as we feel it is critical that Citizens be as fully informed as possible, in as timely a manner as possible regarding such controversial and pressing issues, we are publishing the memo immediately.

Streetscape Switch and Bait

2008-04-22T02:17:00.000-07:00

In remarks during last week’s Finance Committee meeting, Mayor Darlene Kordonowy stated that she remains committed to completing the Winslow Way utility upgrades, now described as the “Winslow Way Reconstruction Project”, in spite of the financial shortfalls finally being acknowledged by the City’s Finance Department. The Mayor compared having to give up the more elaborate and expensive “Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape”, and indeed Winslow Tomorrow itself, to having to give up a “brand new car” and stated that if she is going to have to keep the old car, she just wants to make sure the brakes are working until she can “put that new car back on the wish list.” But has she really given up that new car, or are we being set up for yet another Winslow Tomorrow bait and switch?

Robin Hood in Reverse

The new financial reality, explained by Finance Director Elray Konkel, is that the City has no capacity to undertake new debt. In other words, there literally isn’t enough revenue to make debt payments. This is partially due to debt already undertaken, including the infamous $4 million bond issued last December to pay Heery International for Phase I of the now presumably obsolete Streetscape design and for the feasibility study for the parking-garage-that-no-one-wanted. Of course, all indicators now point to the fact the City was already in the red for nearly two years when that bond was authorized. The latest blow has been the projected shortfall of up to $2.5 million in 2008 revenues, and a possible $500,000-750,000 shortfall on the 2007 books –which have yet to be closed, let alone produced to Council.

Faced with this potential $3 million plus deficit, the Administration, in its scramble to pull together a funding source for the Streetscape, has proposed to slash virtually every other capital project on the Capital Facilities Plan and is now asking for $1.3 million in revenue bonds to pay for Phase II of the Heery contract – the one which, despite claims that we are now pursuing “a simple utility project”, still calls for the completion of the full design for that new car we can’t afford.

Revenue bonds are non-voter approved debt that is repaid by a specified revenue-generating source – in this case City utilities. So sewer, water and storm water rates will be raised to pay for the design contract and, by a huge margin, Winslow ratepayers will take the biggest hit. But hold on to your hats, because the current plan is to help finance not only the Streetscape design, but also its construction and the construction of the new wastewater treatment plant with revenue bonds totaling $12.5 million – all to be borne by ratepayers, with by far the largest portion allocated to Winslow residents.

So, putting aside for the moment the legality of imposing design and planning costs on ratepayers, what will Heery International be producing for our cash strapped community? Amazingly, despite not having enough capacity to fund even the design, let alone the construction, of a bare bones utility project, a majority on Council, at the behest of the Mayor, Winslow property owners and other Winslow Tomorrow proponents, has thus far agreed to contract for the full bells and whistles Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape design that appeared to be beyond the City’s financial capacity even before the recent revelations by the Finance Department.

All Signs Point to Winslow Tomorrow

The content of the Heery contract isn’t the only hint that the Mayor has by no means given up on her Winslow Tomorrow dream car. Her latest appointments to the Planning Commission and the Land Use Code Users Committee and the current agenda before the Planning Commission, are almost naked in their purpose: keep Winslow Tomorrow alive.

Two weeks ago the Mayor appointed a new member to the Planning Commission to fill the position vacated by our new City Administrator, Mark Dombroski. The new Commission appointee stated in his letter of interest that his reason for applying was “mostly to support the Winslow Tomorrow initiative” and attached as a supporting document a 2007 letter to the editor detailing his commitment to taller buildings, denser construction and a parking garage on Winslow Way. This same individual was also recently appointed to the Code User’s Committee working to help the City rewrite the land use code. If the Mayor is giving up Winslow Tomorrow, why did she put such a strong advocate in positions of influence over our land use code and Comprehensive Plan?

A particularly obvious sign that Winslow Tomorrow is chugging along despite our empty coffers and lack of community support, popped up on this Thursday evening’s Planning Commission agenda. Item One on the Commission’s agenda is “Winslow Tomorrow Implementation.” What an inopportune time for City Staff to revive this politically charged name. In recent months, the Winslow Tomorrow agenda has been recast as “Downtown Planning” and Winslow Tomorrow has become the-project-that-must-not-be-named. Someone’s going to the Mayors office for this one.

Whose Car is it Anyway?

Why are four members of the Council (Franz, Peters, Snow & Stoknes) even considering proceeding, and proceeding with haste, under these circumstances? A clue may have come from Councilman Chris Snow’s comment during the last City Council meeting that the two largest downtown property owners, Larry Nakata (T&C) and Tom Haggar (VM Clinic) have “plans to expand their facilities with a target date of 2010 to 2011 – right after the Streetscape is completed.”

Which brings us back to that Planning Commission agenda. Under the “Implementation of Winslow Tomorrow” heading, you’ll find that the commission is being asked to finalize their recommendation to Council on the Winslow Tomorrow inspired increased height and density in the Winslow Core. While public pressure brought the originally proposed height and density down from a max height of 55 feet and a maximum density of 2.5 FAR, the Administration and property owners are still hoping for 45 feet and 2.0 FAR. (Harbor Square was built at a 1.3 FAR) Even with this proposed zoning, significantly larger structures will be possible, especially in light of the fact that some Winslow Way property owners have been negotiating to expand their holdings.

And so let’s review what we have learned about the road before us. The Mayor has just appointed a committed advocate for Winslow Tomorrow to both the Planning Commission and as a new member of the Code Committee, a new contract with Heery is before Council to oversee the design and engineering of all the utility upgrades that will allow for a dense downtown as well as (just in case we find a lot of extra money) all the Winslow Tomorrow developed Streetscape embellishments, the Planning Commission is working hard on upping zoning on Winslow Way and at least two Winslow Way property owners are chomping at the bit to increase the density of their developments. Looks like a lot more than a new car – it sure isn’t a brake job.

Whether you call it repairs, upgrades or a new car, it’s clear that we're being asked to pay for a powerful new engine that will serve as the heart and backbone of the bigger, taller Winslow envisioned by Winslow Tomorrow and rejected by the community. Actually, we’re not being asked. Even with the results of the community priorities survey in hand, our preferences don’t really matter to those pushing for this project. Although, they would be more than happy to get up close and personal with our wallets…

Co-authored by Canary, longtime contributor to the PostScript.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Undoing the People’s Work

2008-04-17T00:12:00.000-07:00

. .

Surely no one believed the Mayor would take the effort to change our form of government to Council-Manager lying down, but what has been surprising is the openness with which she and her supporters have undertaken to discredit and hinder those working to get the issue on the ballot. A full-blown, multi-pronged attack is already underway as the change of government effort is just getting warmed up.

Our Tax Dollars at Work

We’ve learned on good authority that our City Attorney has been asked to look into the legality of the citizen petition circulating in the community, and many sources have reported that the official word being broadcast from City Hall is that the petition is deficient or even illegal. (We’ll leave it to our readers to ponder the ethics of this arguably political and personal use of the City Attorney’s time.) One specific basis apparently cited for the legal insufficiency of the current petition effort is a claim that the special election that would result from a successful petition drive can only occur in odd-numbered years. While we’re not elections law experts here at the PostScript, a look at the relevant RCWs leaves us dubious as to the validity of this argument.

Under RCW 35A.06.030, our City may choose to abandon its current plan of government, in our case a Mayor-Council plan, and adopt another plan such as the Council-Manager form of government proposed by a growing segment of our community. Under RCW 35A.02.025, once a verified petition containing the signatures of a number equal to at least 10% of the number of voters participating in the last general election is presented to the State Auditor, the City Council must pass a resolution accepting the results and the question “shall be referred to the voters for confirmation or rejection in the next general municipal election if one is to be held within one hundred and eighty days from the date of filing of the referendum petition, or at a special election to be called for that purpose.” There will be no general municipal elections this year, as it is an odd-numbered year, so this ballot issue would proceed through a “special election”. RCW 29A.04.330 (2) addresses the timing of “special” City elections and, unlike section (1), which applies to “general” elections, does not impose an odd-year only limitation. Thus it appears that the timing of the petition is entirely consistent with Washington law.

Representing the Few

Another recent attempt to discredit the petition drive was entirely foreseeable, but nonetheless leaves us shaking our heads. A campaign is underway to spread the word that the change of government effort is nothing more than a power grab by the City Council. Something of an insult to the many citizens working this grassroots effort. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a more citizen-based initiative. The diversity of support is a story in itself, as prominent local conservatives and liberals are equally involved, as are property rights activists, greens, seniors, old timers and recent transplants. Not only have supporters from all these groups signed the petition, but they are currently participating in collecting signatures. We’re not going to name names here, but we welcome those willing to speak out to add their two cents in a comment following this post.

Perhaps most shocking has been the apparent involvement of at least one sitting Councilmember in this disinformation campaign. Multiple sources have reported that this Councilperson has personally stated on a number of occasions that the petition effort is invalid and that it is an attempt by some on Council to seize control of City Hall. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that this same Councilor has voted yea to every part of the Mayor’s agenda placed before him, going so far as to loudly advocate for Big Winslow projects even as the City’s Finance Director has all but declared a state of financial emergency. One has to wonder who exactly this Councilperson is representing because it certainly isn’t the average Bainbridge voter.

Silencing the Many

These attempts to manipulate, even derail, this community conversation and citizen action shouldn’t come as a surprise. Silencing dissent is a popular pastime on the Island, be it through City Hall propaganda or on the editorial page of the Mayor’s paper of record. Those who disagree with the agenda of the Mayor and special interests are “misinformed”, “fearful of change” and above all are, horror of horrors, “negative”.

Dissent by its very definition is negative. So what? It’s also an inevitable result of a free and educated society, an essential element of democracy and an honored American tradition. For too long, this community and the City Council have been held hostage by a warped interpretation of “civility.” Civility and dissent are not incongruent. In fact, they are entirely complementary. Civility without dissent is acquiescence, and dissent without civility is, well, pretty ugly.

So embrace your (civil) negativity Bainbridge. There’s a rocky road ahead, and not much money left to fix it. This is the time to evaluate all of our options and make some tough decisions, whether we are Councilpersons prioritizing spending or Citizens considering a change in our form of government. Sometimes taking a negative position is the most positive thing one can do.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

The Power of Information

2008-04-13T20:51:00.000-07:00

The Community Priorities survey is in and we’re guessing the results aren’t looking too good for downtown redevelopment advocates. Great news for the community at large, right? Not unless the results of the survey are actually provided to the City Council that commissioned the time-sensitive survey in the first place. Unfortunately, it appears that even the most direct and public attempts by Council to gather crucial data to inform their decision-making can be delayed, manipulated or thwarted by the Administration. The failure to disclose the results of the survey is just the latest in the ongoing pattern of withholding timely, critical information from Council.

It’s All in the Timing

Throughout 2007, several Councilmembers including Bill Knobloch, Debbie Vancil and Nezam Tooloee questioned whether the capital spending projects (aka the massive redevelopment of downtown Winslow) proposed by the administration reflected the community’s true priorities. In November, citizens echoed this concern in a petition calling for City spending to match community priorities.

As the 2008 City Council convened, the issues of community priorities and fiscal responsibility were understood to be the twin elephants in the room that the newly assembled Council would address before crafting the 2009 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and subsequent budget. Councilors sought to commission an independent and reliable survey of Island households to ascertain the community’s priorities. The intent was to complete the survey process prior to the start of the CFP and budget planning processes slated to begin this month. An outside firm was hired to conduct the survey and results were expected to be available prior to the first CFP workshop.

On April 9th, the Council participated in the first of four CFP workshops and, during the regularly scheduled meeting that followed, wrestled with the hugely controversial issue of whether to continue funding the Winslow Way Streetscape project. Not a mention was made of the survey, it’s results or its progress.

City Hall insiders report that the data collected through a random phone call survey was delivered to the City prior to the April 9^th City Council meeting, but it was decided to delay the release of the survey findings to the full Council and the Public so as to not influence the outcome of a second nonscientific on-line survey to be conducted by City staff during the last two weeks of April. The current plan is to release the data at a special April 30th City Council workshop, after the second CFP workshop and more than halfway through the CFP planning process.

According to an article on the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) website, a random sample telephone survey of at least 200 households (400 were interviewed on Bainbridge Island) is “the most democratic process there is, and the most reliable, for learning about the opinions of an entire community”. This was certainly what the Council had in mind when it commissioned the survey, and the results from this professionally administered survey are in. So what is this second on-line survey and why is it holding up the urgently needed results from the first one? According to the same MRSC article, a “self-selected survey” such as an on-line survey, is appropriate when a city has a “political need to create a survey process” and can be “an excellent public relations tool”, but, as the article warns, “extreme caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusion about what the public, in general, thinks based upon the results from a survey when the respondents are volunteers”.

In other words, the completed random phone survey is the official survey, the results of which should have been immediately published to Council and the community, and the on-line survey is a touchy-feely emotional outlet for those of us who may feel left out if we did not receive a phone call. But the Administration is arguing that it is more important to protect the integrity of the second, self-referred survey than to provide the Council with the critical data it needs to prioritize capital spending. Would anyone believe for a moment that had the Streetscape project (or “downtown planning” as Winslow Tomorrow is now described) ranked high on the list of community priorities, the data would not have been produced at the April 9th Council meeting to augment the case for proceeding with the Winslow Way Streetscape project?

It’s All in the Translation

The 2008 Community Priorities survey is not the only attempt by this City Council to gather accurate and timely information to inform the Capital Facilities Plan that has been manipulated by the Administration. The manner in which the Value Engineering analysis of the Winslow Way Streetscape project was presented to Council also raised questions about the integrity of the process by which Council is informed and advised.

Thanks in large part to Councilperson Kim Brackett, Council directed staff in February to hire an independent outside firm specializing in value engineering to evaluate consultant Heery International’s 30% design plans for the Winslow Way Streetscape project. Those who had been watching the Streetscape project closely, with concerns regarding the financial viability of the project and the accuracy of the cost and construction schedule, applauded this move and awaited the report with anticipation.

But the Value Engineering Report took a rather circuitous path on its way to Council last month. The report was delivered to City staff almost three weeks prior to the March 26th Council workshop scheduled to discuss the findings of the study. Although it was the Council that had directed the report to be prepared and it was the Administration that had established a tight decision-making time line for Council to fund Streetscape, Councilors did not receive copies of the report at the March 10th Public Works Committee meeting where committee members were given a Staff prepared analysis of the report. Nor did Councilmembers receive a copy of the report at the Finance Committee meeting on March 18th. While it appears that a few persistent councilors managed to get advance copies, staff did not in fact release this dense document, which included oversized exhibits, to the full Council until two days prior to the March 26th Council Workshop, and then only electronically. A hard copy was not included in the Council’s agenda packet, nor was any portion of the report made available to the public electronically on the COBI website.

To this day, the report, which was arguably initiated as an independent evaluation of the work of both Heery and City staff, has only been provided to the general public through the filter of a City staff prepared outline integrating the Value Engineering Report’s recommendations with those of staff. Lost has been not only the many pages of raw data, but the informative narratives through which the consultants attempted to evaluate the design as well as the costs of the project. Some in the community might have been interested to hear that the authors of the report felt that the proposed design would replace an “already rich” streetscape with a “cohesive dense streetscape” and suggested that existing features be rebuilt or salvaged “even if at a premium cost”. In other words, we already have a Main Street that has character, and much of it is worth saving during the impending underground utility upgrade.

It’s All in the Fine Print

As we recently reported, the Administration has also been less than forthcoming about the status of City finances over the last few months, and apparently over the last few years. While one has to appreciate the Finance Department’s newly found candor, it has been like pulling teeth for Councilmembers to extract the data not only in open public meetings but in off the record attempts to get to the whole truth.

While we have been given enough data to realize that the City is broke, the onus remains on the Public and Council to read between the lines and fill in the blanks in order to construct the whole picture – something that not everyone may be willing or able to do. Miss one meeting, and you miss an integral part of the puzzle. It has also not been made clear that our current financial crisis is not a newly discovered reflection of the recent economic downturn, but that City finances have been heading south for sometime. Certainly our Finance Director is not claiming to have failed to notice when expenses began to exceed revenues two years ago.

Apparently it’s all in how you ask the question. Finance Director Konkel opened his April 2nd comments stating that he had checked bank balances earlier that day and was pleased to announce that the City had over $6 million in cash. Given the context in which that assertion was made, presumably the purpose was to discredit those sounding the alarm in the community, in particular those who had reported that the City had a zero cash balance in December 2007. It was only after being asked specifically about how much of that cash was unencumbered, that Mr. Konkel stated that all of that cash was encumbered and that the Council should assume that “there is no excess money anywhere.”

We've understood for some time that open communication is not the Administration's strong suit. But for Councilmembers to have to hunt down Council initiated reports, accept spin in place of fact or guess the magic words to open the gates to full disclosure is beyond the pale. The information that is being delayed, manipulated or withheld is essential to our representatives to make informed and responsible decisions regarding the spending of our money and the future of our Island. Councilmembers and the Public they represent must insist that the Administration deliver full, accurate and timely information and not a penny more should be allocated nor major policy approved until that time. On that note, we eagerly await the prompt publication of the complete and unabridged results of the community priorities survey.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Gag Orders, Stonewalling and Empty Coffers

2008-03-31T16:30:00.000-07:00

Three months into 2008 and despite undercurrents of regime change and improprieties exposed, City Hall politics are looking disturbingly familiar. While it is clear that a floating majority of this Council is making a valiant, and perhaps unprecedented, effort to assert itself, insisting on full disclosure from staff showing both fiscal responsibility and community support before allocating funds, it’s still business as usual for other players at City Hall as the Administration continues to use its information monopoly to keep Council in the dark.

City Hall insiders who have been closely following COBI finances assert that the City is strapped for cash and is even delinquent with respect to some of its obligations. There’s enough substance behind these rumors to cause a majority of Councilors to make clear that they will not proceed with major funding decisions until they’ve been fully informed by staff about the status of current City finances. Therein lies the rub. In order for Council to fully understand the City’s current financial status, Staff must provide Council with comprehensive records. Yet Council requests have been apparently met with stonewalling and gag orders. Meanwhile, there has been mounting evidence of a financial crisis, including an admission by Finance Director Konkel that on December 31st the City had no cash on hand, and the fact that the City has not been current with two of its most high profile community support obligations – Bainbridge Island Arts and Humanities Council and BITV. This despite the Mayor making public reassurances of financial solvency and contending publicly at the March 24th City Council meeting that a gag order was never imposed on Staff prohibiting communication with Council members. Meanwhile her department heads and Staff are less than forthcoming with the records that might, or might not, substantiate her claims.

The revelation of a zero cash balance at the close of 2007 prompted a respected local accounting expert and Council watcher to e-mail the following series of questions and observations to Council in March:

1. What happened to the 2nd half of 2007 property tax receipts of some $3,000,000, most of which was received during the last four months of 2007?

2. The year-end Councilmanic bond of several million dollars closed on December 20th or so. Does this mean that all the cash went out the door by December 31st?

3. This kind of cash situation doesn't suddenly come as a surprise when you happen to look at the City's checkbooks in late December. What did the Mayor, Elray, et al know, and when did they know it - especially in light of the November to January budget and Capital Facilities Plan debates?

4. If indeed the City's poor cash position was known by the Mayor, Mary Jo, Elray, etc. in late 2007, it makes the Amba Gale retreat even worse. Something about the Captain and key crewmembers rearranging the deck chairs on the stern, while the ship is steaming straight towards an iceberg.

5. It is clearly time for (a) a near total stand down on capital projects and new hiring, and (b) an audit by a CPA firm selected by the Council.

These rumblings of an impending financial crisis for our City make us wonder about the timing of a recent announcement by the City of a crackdown on unlicensed Island businesses involving a hefty $500 per day fine. This move is particularly ironic at a time when the Administration has been sharply criticized for knowingly allowing its Chief City Engineer to remain unlicensed for two years.

At the March 24th City Council Meeting, Council person Debbie Vancil laid out a series of questions she wants answered by the April 2nd Special City Council Meeting on City Finances and the Winslow Way Streetscape. How much cash does the City have on hand today? Are revenue projections on target? Are expenses exceeding revenue? Without credible answers to these questions, it appears that Council may finally pull the plug on the Administration's spending spree.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

The Choice is Clear

2008-03-28T22:41:00.000-07:00

The Bainbridge Resource Group (BRG) distributed the first in a series of papers today on the Council-Manager and Strong Mayor forms of government. A petition is currently circulating in the community to put the question on the ballot later this year. Published with permission.

Council-Manager or Strong Mayor?

The Choice is Clear

Learn the Facts about Council-Manager Government

Everyone wants strong political leadership – neighborhoods, civic leaders, and the business community included. And today’s complex communities cannot survive without the guidance of effective mayors who provide a sense of direction and contribute to the smooth functioning of a local government.

But communities also need thoughtful, dedicated council members, who work with the mayor to establish appropriate policy, and competent, professional managers to carry out those policies. None of the three are mutually exclusive; they can and do work together today in many of the country’s successful council-manager communities.

Today council-manager government is the fastest growing form of government in the U.S; it frees up the elected body to establish policy, which is carried out by an appointed manager and an administrative staff. The manager is accountable to the entire council for the satisfactory implementation of the council policy and the day-to-day administration of municipal affairs.

There are compelling reasons why many of the nation’s most successful cities and towns have adopted council-manager government rather than “strong-mayor” form. Council-Manager government encourages neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing and contracting decisions.

People who take the time to learn the facts about council-manager government are likely to join the ranks of those who favor this popular form. Consider the following when deciding which form of government is best for your community:

Neighborhoods Strengthen Their Voice

The council-manager form encourages open communication between citizens and their government. Under this form, each member of the governing body has an equal voice in policy development and administrative oversight. This gives neighborhoods and diverse groups a greater opportunity to influence policy.

Under the “strong-mayor” form, political power is concentrated in the mayor, which means that other members of the elected body relinquish at least some of their policy-making power and influence. This loss of decision-making power among council members can have a chilling effect on the voices of neighborhoods and city residents.

The Power of Special Interests is Diffused

Under the council-manager form of government, involvement of the entire elected body ensures a more balanced approach to community decision making, so that all interests can be expressed and heard – not just those that are well-funded or well-connected. Under the “strong-mayor” form, however it is easier for special interests to use money and political power to influence a single elected official, rather than having to secure a majority of the city council’s support for their agenda.

Merit-Based Decision Making vs. Partisan Politics

Under council-manager government, qualifications and performance-and not skillful navigation of the political election process-are the criteria the elected body uses to select a professional manager. The professional manager, in turn, uses his or her education, experience, and training to select department heads and other key managers to oversee the efficient delivery of services. In this way, council-manager government maintains critical checks and balances to ensure accountability at city hall.

Functioning much like a business organization’s chief executive officer, the appointed professional manager administers the daily operations of the community. Through a professional staff, the manager ensures the effective provision of services and enforces the policies adopted by the elected body. He or she, in turn, uses merit as the leading criterion for making all hiring and personnel decisions.

Appointed local government managers have no guaranteed term of office or tenure. They can be dismissed by the council at any time, for any reason. As a result, they constantly must respond to citizens and be dedicated to the highest ideals of honesty, integrity and excellence in the management and delivery of public services.

Under the “strong mayor” form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the mayor, who often lacks the appropriate training, education and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services. Also, under the “strong mayor” form, the temptation is strong to make decisions regarding hiring and firing of key department head positions-such as police chief, public works director and finance director-based on the applicant’s political support rather than his or her professional qualifications.

Many Successful Cities Use Council-Manager Government

Council-Manager government works! It balances diverse interests, responds quickly to challenges, and brings the community together to resolve even the toughest issues.

Currently, more than 98 million Americans live in council-manager communities, and the system continues to flourish. This form of government is used by thousands of small, medium and large jurisdictions, including Boulder, San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose and Phoenix. In Washington it includes, for example: Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Centralia, Ellensburg, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Port Townsend, and Richland.

History Argues for the Council-Manager Form of Government

Nearly 100 years old, the council-manager form of government has proven it adaptability; today it is the most popular choice of structure among U.S. communities with populations of 2,500 or greater. Since 1988 the percentage of U.S. cities under council-manager has increased from 35% to 49% and the percentage of U.S. cities under mayor-council has decreased from 55% to 43.5%. During this time the number of cities has increased by 8%.

Council-Manager government, however, was not always an option. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, there was widespread corruption, graft and nepotism among U.S. cities. The stories of New York’s Tammany Hall and Kansas City’s Pendergrast machine are only two of the legendary stories of the misuse of local government power during this time.

By the early 20^th century, reformers were looking for ways to return control of municipal government to citizens. Those reformers advocated the council-manager structure of government to eliminate corruption found in many cities. With its emphasis on professional training and accountability, the council-manager form of government was adopted by a number of cities in the 1920s and 1930s.

It took years to diffuse the power entrenched in turn-of-the-century city political machines and special interests. Today, however, citizens throughout the U.S. have resumed control by adopting or retaining council-manager government in their community and enjoying representative democracy at its best.

Adapted from: California City Management Foundation, originally published in 1998.

New data included from Municipal Yearbook of the International Council Manager Association. ICMA.org. And from Municipal Research Services Center at MRSC.org.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

The Fort Collins Connection

2008-02-21T00:42:00.000-08:00

Rumblings in the community about an increasingly interesting relationship between the City of Bainbridge Island and the City of Fort Collins, CO have reached an audible pitch following recent developments at City Hall.

As Tristan “the press is back in town” Baurick noted in the Bainbridge Islander last week (and more pointedly on the Islander's blog), two of the five finalists in the City’s search for a new City Administrator have served previously as City Manager for Fort Collins. An interesting coincidence as Fort Collins is a relatively small town not exactly a stone’s throw away. But what really makes the coincidence worth noting is that these are just two of an increasing number of links between the two cities.

The most prominent connection to Fort Collins thus far has been, of course, our current Planning Director Greg Byrne. Byrne served as Director of Planning in Fort Collins prior to taking his current position at the City of Bainbridge Island last year. During his tenure at Fort Collins, Director Byrne helped to craft City Plan, a Winslow Tomorrow-esque comprehensive plan to guide city planning through 2025. Among the consultants participating in the creation the plan was the Fort Collins office of EDAW, former and current employer of ex-Winslow Tomorrow project manager Sandy Fischer. Not to say that Fischer was involved in the Fort Collins plan. At that time, Ms. Fischer was the owner of an architecture firm in Montana where she ultimately played a major role in the redevelopment of downtown Billings, including a prominent streetscape project paid for largely by the benefiting private property owners and grant money (imagine that). She was hired by the Seattle office of EDAW in 2002.

The real “hmmm” moment came last week with the hiring of Clarion Associates for the overhaul of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. Those who watched the February 13th Council meeting may recall planning director Greg Byrne explaining the fair and thorough process used to evaluate the candidates for the $200,000 contract that resulted in the unanimous decision to recommend Clarion. A quick Internet search finds that Clarion Consultants, a national firm, has an office in Fort Collins. A few more clicks of the mouse and we find that not only has Director Byrne worked closely with Clarion on a number of occasions over at least the last 10 years, including the creation of City Plan, but, as Clarion boasts on it’s website, it was also hired to draft “an innovative new zoning code that … guided implementation of City Plan”.

We could do worse when it comes to intriguing relationships – apparently Fort Collins was Money magazine’s number one best place to live in 2006. Although, if we’re going to draw heavily (solely?) on the talent of one particular geographical location, it could be argued that a coastal or island locale might be a more suitable training ground than one located in the land locked high desert.

So what exactly is the significance of these connections to Fort Collins, CO? Who knows. Perhaps it’s evidence of an elaborate conspiracy related to the redevelopment of Winslow, or perhaps it’s just another case of I-know-a-guy hiring practices. Either way it’s probably worth keeping our eyes out for more visitors from “the FC”.

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Hats for Sale

2008-01-29T13:34:00.000-08:00

Winslow Tomorrow has sparked growing distrust in city government. City Council meetings have become increasingly rancorous, and more than 500 islanders have signed a petition calling for a stop to the effort. And yet the Administration keeps bringing forward proposals and new consulting studies to justify them. The question is why does it keep moving forward so doggedly?

You might expect downtown property owners to be one force, and they are, but this alone does not explain the momentum. What may not be as clear is that the City’s own hired consultants have become a force to be reckoned with and that some of the consultants may stand to benefit from financing or developing projects they have helped plan. With some consultants taking on multiple roles as Winslow Tomorrow Facilitators and outspoken advocates of the effort, it becomes hard to know which hat they are wearing on any given day. The recent feasibility study for a parking garage is a case in point.

One Stop Shopping?

Parking is one of the most daunting and complicated issues in real estate, and in most places a city government would start by hiring experts to identify basic needs and the various alternatives for meeting these. Here on Bainbridge Island, however, the Administration went straight to the step of paying for a feasibility study for a garage that would range in size from about 325 spaces up to over 1000 spaces. Last March, the Mayor signed an agreement with Haggar-Scribner Properties, LLC and Sandstrom Properties, LLC (together as SSH, LLC) to study the feasibility of building a parking garage on the city-owned lot adjacent to the combined property holdings of SSH. This $127,500 professional services contract has become known to many as the “Capstone Contract”, as the agreement with the City provided that Capstone Properties, LLC would perform the study on behalf of SSH.

The contract stipulated that Capstone would provide “needs programming”, “rough order of magnitude” cost estimates and a financing and development plan for the garage. This agreement, Winslow Tomorrow’s second largest professional services contract in the last two years, was not put out to competitive bid.

Capstone’s website states that the firm “plans, finances, implements and manages” commercial real estate investment for investors and organizations. Not only does the firm appear to handle everything from site acquisition to development to management for commercial, multifamily residential and medical facilities for others, but judging from its project portfolio, it is also in the business of real estate investment and development for itself.

About a week after signing the Capstone contract, the City also signed a $38,500 contract amendment to an existing contract with National Development Council (National), to oversee Capstone’s work on behalf of the City. National is locally represented by Chuck Depew. This contract also provided that National would evaluate the “function and financing of a quasi-governmental entity” to support the City’s “implementation efforts” of financing and developing the garage, in other words, a private-public partnership. This brought the total cost of these two parking garage feasibility contracts to $166,000.

Over the last four years the City has contracted both with Chuck Depew, individually, and with National, his employer, for almost $120,000 in no-bid professional services for work on Winslow Tomorrow. The National Development Council’s website bills the organization as “one of the oldest national non-profit community and economic development organizations in the U.S.”. And in municipal circles, National is well regarded for its training and financial analysis capabilities.

However, the organization also takes on the roles of financing and developing big public works projects like this garage, for which the fees for “implementation” are much bigger than the fees for consulting. In this way National’s business model is very much like Capstone’s – doing consulting work that sometimes leads to development, where the fees can be much greater.

Public/private partnerships always require squeaky-clean relationships, but these relationships become even more complicated when key players have dual roles as both consultant and financier or developer. Such was the case in Seattle where, in the late 1990s, the City of Seattle hired National to help it arrange financing for the $73 million public garage being built through a public/private partnership with a developer. According to the Seattle Times, the city’s Ethics and Elections Commission issued a report finding that National had violated a $70,000 consulting contract that barred it from having any financial interest in the project, by making an arrangement with the garage developer that would pay National $500,000.

Chuck Depew was Deputy Director of the Seattle Office of Economic Development and oversaw National’s work. According to the Times, he described the ethics commission’s report as “over dramatized”. Depew left the City to join National the following year.

National also developed an office building for King County. A Seattle Weekly article titled King Street, Easy Street carried the sub-heading “Developer John Finke cleans up with another ‘public private partnership’”, referring to the head of National’s local office. This article describes Finke as a “consultant-cum-developer” and his work with the County as “another sweet deal”.

The parking garage feasibility report here on Bainbridge states that the cost figures assume “privately commissioned project delivery” of the garage. This is developer-speak for someone other than the City designing, building and financing the garage. And this would be no small project, for the possibilities under consideration range from 325 to about 1000 spaces and would cost tens of millions of dollars. The financing and development fees could range from $700,000

There is also interesting language in the Capstone contract about joint cost sharing on future work phases to include preliminary design, plan review and a “final decision process” for construction of the garage. Considering this language and the business models of both Capstone and National Development, both of these firms seem to be ideally positioned to be key players in future downtown development – potentially even in the development of the parking garage.

The Capstone and National contracts raise two key questions: 1) what care and due diligence has the City Administration taken in hiring consultants who may have a conflict of interest and 2) what roles has the City given these consultants in shaping and directing the overall Winslow Tomorrow program?

Now You See 'Em, Now You See 'Em Again

Winslow Tomorrow has a long history of a few people playing multiple roles. Don Audleman (Capstone), Chuck Depew and Tom Haggar (Haggar-Scribner Properties) have all been ardent supporters of and participants in Winslow Tomorrow. Depew was heavily involved in preparing the financial pro formas used by the Administration to argue for bigger buildings, and was a member of the Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Committee that voted to send these studies along for public use. This committee was chaired by then City Council candidate Kjell Stoknes, who is now a sitting City Council member. Other participants in that committee included former Winslow Tomorrow project manager Sandy Fischer, John Waldo, former Bainbridge Island Downtown Association president Will Langemack, retired health care consultant Howard Kirz, Winslow developer Bror Elmquist, and others.

Some members of the Feasibility group had also served as facilitators for the Winslow Tomorrow citizen congress, including Depew, Stoknes, Waldo, and Kirz. At least one, Depew, was apparently paid for that work. The City also subsequently contracted for professional services with at least two other citizen group facilitators, including Julie Shyrock and Michael Read.

Don Audleman of Capstone has served as a member of the Winslow Way Streetscape Advisory committee along with Tom Haggar, co-owner of the property occupied by the Virginia Mason Clinic, and his wife. Haggar has been actively involved in lobbying the planning commission to approve proposed increased building heights and density in the Winslow Core and both he and his wife also served as citizen participants in the Winslow Tomorrow congress.

So, when someone gets up to speak in favor of Winslow Tomorrow, or to lead a “public outreach” effort, do we know whether they are they speaking as citizens, as Winslow commercial property owners, as paid facilitators, as financing consultants, as financiers or as developers? Or, are they performing multiple roles at the same time?

It is clearly the City administration’s responsibility to keep participants’ roles and responsibilities clear, to protect against conflicts of interest in the way it runs planning efforts and to disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest once they are discovered. In fact, the American Planning Association states quite clearly, in its ethical principles that planning process participants should “make public disclosure of all ‘personal interests’ they may have regarding any decision to be made in the planning process in which they may serve, or are requested to serve, as advisor or decision maker".

The Way Forward

There are at least three qualities that most City governments seek to embody in their planning and public works projects. The first is an open and transparent process, so that citizens know if the person at the microphone is simply an interested citizen, is a paid consultant supporting an Administration policy or is a developer, land owner or potential future developer who will benefit from a particular outcome. Secondly, the work should produce real and alternative options. A good process starts with a good analysis of needs, and then presents the various solutions in a balanced way. Thirdly, there should be solid support in the community for any proposal that is likely to change the nature of the place. In cities with a council/ manager form of government, the manager usually wants to pass controversial measures with a majority of two, if not three passing votes – if only because he or she does not want to be one vote away from being fired should the politics reverse themselves.

Bainbridge has a “strong mayor” form of government which makes the Mayor the elected chief executive responsible for hiring the right people and ultimately responsible for running a fair and open process. Her signature is on most of the contracts, and the buck stops with her on management issues and the performance of her administration.

So far the costs of Winslow Tomorrow are more than $4 million and the revolving door of consultants, financial stakeholders and other planning participants spins on. The Winslow Way Streetscape project and other downtown redevelopment efforts have taken on the force of a steamroller, with the Mayor firmly at the wheel. Together they are rolling towards projects with costs five and ten times what she has already spent. Are the same people who developed the map for these ventures also along for the full ride? And without a more open and transparent process, how will we ever be able to trust that planning decisions and recommendations reflect the interests of the community and not those of a small group of people wearing many hats?

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

How We Do Things Here

2007-12-17T23:12:00.001-08:00

Who better to give us some insight into the current budget controversy than Bob Fortner. The following are comments he presented at Monday's special City Council meeting on the Budget and Capital Facilities Plan. Nancy Fortner contributed.

Published here with the authors' permission.

"Mayor and Members of the Council:

Thank you Council for the opportunity to comment in this special session.

The budget process has been seriously compromised from the outset to today. Due to the lack of relevant information the council and the public have been observers, rather than participants in the process. Yet the council, not the proponents, will be held accountable for its outcomes.

At base, this document which is intended to serve as a policy implementation instrument lacks the necessary context and content that inform the process. That critical policy information, developed solely by Administration, was missing from the original budget and is still absent. Despite all the last minute efforts to salvage the budget it remains indecipherable and should not be adopted. The council should simply fund operations into the early months of 2008.

Let me be more specific as to how we think we got here:

Last week the City Administrator was quoted as stating… “We spent 5½ months developing the budget and the council tore it apart in one day.” That comment is disingenuous at best and serves to illustrate gamesmanship not statesmanship. The original document was a flawed product at its unusual presentation and it deserved to be dissected in the search for missing detail such as the policies and assumptions upon which it was based. Did the budget preparers ever check in with council re policy assumptions in the course of staff deliberations? When Council sought that information and the public submitted questions all were told there simply was not enough time to provide the answers, mostly noting staff was too busy. Yet, the Council and the public were treated to at least two major revisions during the information gathering phase of budget hearings. Apparently the workshop organized by the Mayor which took senior staff away for a total of 5 full days during the most crucial period of budget deliberations was deemed of higher priority.

We have been contending for some time that there are serious communication problems in this administration not the least of which is the persistent withholding of relevant information. I have heard more than one account of committee efforts to establish liaison with council members regarding committee deliberations and recommendations in order to promote successful outcomes. These efforts were blocked by the Mayor who stated… “that is not how we do things here.” Clearly that is the case and it apparently applies to budget process as well. Management that is serious about doing the public’s work in public and in a serious manner would never condone or permit “surprises” as was dropped in last Wednesday’s meeting. The public embarrassment will be duly noted by any who might think of applying for the soon to be vacant City Administrator position. And the rest of us remain furious about the associated waste of public and private time and resources. One cannot help but wonder if a workshop, expensive by most standards, has accomplished anything of significance. Since it was a repeat experience for some and the gamesmanship continues, one could conclude communication was not the real objective.

We watched last week’s effort by the council and the public to comprehend the fiscal mismatch in spite of the clear objectives set at the prior meeting. These were confounded by a surprise change in baseline and an “oops” on the fact that capital project costs were different because certain projects had different funding sources which required an additional $2.5M. Long tiring meetings can lead to oversights, but there are other approaches to making the discovery known. The “surprise” came at the beginning of the meeting, though apparently the “oversight and baseline change” were known as early as the previous Monday and no one saw the necessity or value of passing that discovery along to council in advance of the wasteful Wednesday meeting. Remarkably the agenda for that meeting was not prepared by the council-chair with administration but solely by the City Administrator-a significant departure from standard practice which I hope was an aberration.

We are confounded by the disconnect we perceive between the capabilities within the finance department and the work product made available. One wonders if they too are subject to the “that is not how we do things here” dictum.

Despite evidence of the accumulating problems, especially the need for more debt, associated with prior years spending sprees, Administration has continued to push for larger and larger amounts of capital spending particularly on projects, studies and public relations related to WT. Untold, but consequential, amounts have been spent thus far without a public accounting of those costs, all while additional funds are sought. Administration supported policy decisions by staff, not council, to remove LID funding as a source for the WT Streetscape Project, rather than present that as an option to the council and public though it was recommended by the much lauded WT Congress.

Annual capital allocations to Public Works appear to be used in an internal “Ponzi Scheme” that defies penetration and accountability. Public Works commonly reorders council mandated priorities, again without collaboration or consent. That must change. Last week’s issuance of Council-Manic bonds to fund planning soft costs is a mere sample of the painful future for our community largely brought on by a department and a city management structure that defy efforts to be held accountable. That too must change and fiscal stability restored. Council should act immediately to rescind the Mayor’s authorization to sign contracts without prior council approval until that balance is achieved.

Council, current and pending, is well aware of the accumulating revenue, expense and debt problems. Armed with relevant information, with insistence on collaboration and a more deliberative public process the new council can address these concerns and incorporate the much needed benchmark recommendations. The community expects, deserves and will continue to demand transparency and collaboration rather than gamesmanship.

The budget proposal under consideration is a mystery document, an accountability nightmare and too important to be blindly approved as you well recognize. It was developed in a non-collaborative milieu where Administration made policy decisions that remain invisible. In the end, Council will be held accountable. Council and the community must have enough information to be assured that the final 2008 Budget balances fiscal responsibility with Council and community objectives.

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert W. Fortner"

(To post or read comments on this story click on 'COMMENTS' below)

Getting to the Heart of the Matter

2007-12-05T20:38:00.000-08:00

Even before our new City Council members have been sworn in, attempts are being made to “fix” the relationships between those who will govern and staff our island’s City Hall in 2008. After last week’s personal growth workshop for Council and staff, one has to wonder what might be rolled out in 2008. At the risk of being glib, might we recommend a weekly massage? Or perhaps gourmet catered lunches? While in theory these might raise morale among City employees and electeds, it is hard to imagine that taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill for either. Are they any more likely to support personal growth workshops held on City time and paid for by taxpayer money? And is there even more at stake here than consultant fees and lost productivity?

These are questions worth asking, as it appears that the recent workshop may be only the beginning of taxpayer-funded group therapy for COBI staff, elected officials and even private citizens. While Mayor Kordonowy’s recent decision to spend nearly $25,000 for the current 5-day workshop caught the public by surprise, her plans for additional workshops, and purportedly to provide workshop vouchers to private citizens, will not enjoy the same stealth cover. In fact, come December 12, we will see whether funding for future sessions will survive City Council scrutiny of the 2008 Executive Department budget.

On the Agenda...Joy

The workshops in question are truly “training” Bainbridge style. Where else could one imagine the Mayor inviting a group of city officials, staff and private citizens to attend an intensive 5-day personal growth workshop that, according to the program’s website “provides a beacon for people to awaken to the possibility of living life from their own soaring spirit” and that will help participants “deepen their foundation of connection with one another, with community, to expand their vitality, power, and heart across all aspects of their lives”?

A local firm, Gale Consulting, is facilitating this “Heart of Leadership” personal growth program that began last week and concludes with a two-day session in December. According to the Mayor, the workshop’s focus on “collaboration and communication” justify the commitment of valuable City time and resources to make it happen. That significant morale and communication problems exist at City Hall was well documented by the 2006 Benchmarking Study. Based on interviews with key stakeholders, including 90% of City staff, the study noted, for example, an unusually high turnover rate for regular employees – almost double the norm. And the communication breakdown and role confusion between Council and the Administration is an accepted fact.

But this is much more than a “communication” workshop. It is an intense and very personal interactive retreat designed to empower individuals to find “Heart, Spirit, Joy and Accomplishment in the Workplace.” Amba Gale, the owner of Gale Consulting and moderator of the workshop, appears to be a well-seasoned “transformational consultant.” Of note, Ms. Gale has worked for the Hunger Project, a program developed in the 1980s focusing on ending world hunger, and which was the brainchild of Werner Erhard (founder of the infamous Erhard Seminars Training or “EST”). The EST goals of achieving personal transformation and enhanced power in participants’ lives are not dissimilar from those described in the Gale Consulting marketing materials.

Building a Circle of Power

In late October of this year, the Mayor sent out workshop invitations to 24 invitees, which included approximately 1/3 each of senior staff, current/emerging City Council members and selected private citizens (amazingly, this included some but not all of the then Council candidates). Shortly thereafter, as legal questions emerged about the propriety of funding such a highly personalized program for private citizens, that invite list shifted. Citizen invitations were withdrawn and the final list included only two sitting Council members, three Council members-elect, our Mayor, seven City Directors, and six senior staff members.

The timing of the event tells more about who was really invited than the invitees themselves. Consider that, rather than wait for the new year, Mayor Kordonowy opted to hold the first three days of this 5-day workshop on the heels of Thanksgiving, knowing that long-time City Council member Bill Knobloch would be on a vacation scheduled months in advance. Even after learning that the other senior Council member Debbie Vancil would also not be able to attend at that time, the Mayor scheduled the first session for November 26th-28th.

Selecting workshop dates that excluded the two most experienced Council members raises a question as to whether team-building was ever a true workshop goal. But because Vancil and Knobloch were absent, the Mayor was assured that the proceedings would be private. With fewer than four sitting Council members in attendance, the public could be legally excluded.

What’s the Real Cost?

What will be the cost “to create extraordinary relationships” among these folks? Certainly the tangible costs to the City and community at large for these consultant-facilitated therapy sessions are much greater than the contract price. Consider that:

> The workshop takes place on workdays (7:30 am to 5:30 pm). Taking into consideration regular salaries, exclusive of perks, outlays to the 14 City employees in attendance for five full workdays conservatively totals over $24,000. [Not included is the gratis time of the sitting and recently elected Council members.]

>Add to this the “opportunity cost” of lost productivity. What fell off the table or was delayed because staff was unavailable?

> There’s another hidden redundant cost. Two attendees had been through the course once before at taxpayer expense – the Mayor and City Administrator. In addition to participating twice, our City Administrator won’t even be on the City payroll by year’s end.

Readers might be wondering how this happened without public comment and why Council ever approved the contract. The fact is that all aspects of awarding the contract occurred outside of the public eye. It was Mayor Kordonowy who single-handedly negotiated and signed the contract for the workshop. The $24,900 fee was paid out of the Executive Department’s 2007 budget. Interestingly, the workshop’s price tag is a mere $100 shy of the $25,000 limit on the Mayor’s contract signing authority.

The PostScript has written previously about the Mayor’s broad contract signing authority. The Mayor has been free to enter into such contracts since April 2007, when Council expanded her authority for signing “professional or nonprofessional services” contracts from a value of $10,000 to $25,000 per contract. Unfortunately, Council didn’t stop there. Under the same Ordinance, the Mayor’s contracting authority will increase in 2008 to an unprecedented $100,000. There’s no stopping this expansion of the Mayor’s discretionary spending unless our City Council takes back their legitimate authority in 2008. But will there be the will to take such action after having made a commitment to the Heart of Leadership program with the Mayor and whatever that entails?

If You’re Not With Us...

Gale Consulting promises to “facilitate processes which generate authentic quality of relationship between people, including people who have had previous conflicts with one another”. A more than laudable goal, especially for an organization with a long history of distrust and conflict. But where was the conflict between incoming Councilpersons, who have yet to be sworn in, and the Administration? Is this really an attempt to correct an existing conflict, or is it an attempt to commit our incoming Councilpersons to a good behavior compact, or even a “bonding” so that they, as one veteran of the program has swooned, “will do anything for one another?” And this at a time when what is most needed, and justified, is a firm pushback from the Council against a Mayor and Administration that has by their own actions earned the distrust of so many in the community.

One of the most puzzling aspects of this program is how it’s possible “to create relationships that are founded in trust, partnership and alignment” without discussing any of the facts surrounding the basis for the existing distrust and conflict. Apparently, one of the workshop’s ground rules is that no City issues be discussed. And if the goal really is to improve the relationship between Council, Staff and the Mayor, how can that be accomplished without the involvement of Councilpersons Knobloch and Vancil, the only sitting Councilpersons continuing on in 2008 who have expressed public reservations about the Mayor’s agenda?

We may never know what the Mayor’s real purpose is in enlisting the services of Gale Consulting, and we have little choice but to have faith that our newly elected Councilpersons will make decisions in the new year based on the best interests of the community rather than any perceived obligation to the Mayor or to maintain an appearance of “getting along”. Whether or not the Mayor honestly believes that personal growth workshops can cure what ails City Hall, the question remains – should a City strapped for funds approve a 2008 budget that allows our Mayor to contract for future City group therapy sessions or related activities? Increasingly, taxpayers are saying “stop.” The time has come for our City Council – the legislative and policy making branch of City government – to do what is necessary to responsibly take back control of the public purse and our City.

Time is of the Essence

2007-11-28T10:15:00.000-08:00

While most of us are recovering from Thanksgiving and are occupied with family and upcoming holidays, the City machine chugs ever onward with a slew of Comprehensive Plan amendments on Council's agenda this evening. The PostScript has been particularly concerned about changes proposed for the Winslow Master Plan that relate to the redevelopment of the Ferry and Gateway Districts. We are republishing here excerpts from comments that were posted on Green Voices for Bainbridge Island yesterday.

To read the full text of the proposed amendments, see Council's agenda for this evening. The public hearing on these proposed amendments will be at tonight's City Council meeting.

___________________________________________________________

The following excerpt is taken from the public comments of the Cave Neighborhood Community Council, which represents more than 200 residences adjacent to the Ferry and Gateway Districts.

“The Ferry/Gateway Plan was designed to put the city in a position to run parallel with the state's planning of the Ferry Passenger Terminal. Work on the ferry terminal plan is essentially on indefinite hold due to funding shortages, yet the city is rapidly advancing amendments to the
Comp Plan which to some degree even try to dictate to the State Department of Transportation how the passenger terminal should be developed. Though this may be laudable, we suspect if and when the passenger terminal plan is restarted by the state, it may not mesh with the city's plan.

Overall, our neighborhood finds the EIS lacking in assessment, sensitivity to and even consideration of the severe impact of possible new roads and high-density housing on our old established Cave Avenue residential area, and the neighborhoods to the east and north of us, as well as on the rich natural landscapes that exist in this area, especially the Winslow Ravine.

The more buildings, the taller the buildings, the more parking lots and roads – including Alternative Three's proposal to build a vehicle overpass over State Route 305 to connect Wyatt Way and Ferncliff Avenue – will obviously have a far greater impact on our natural and human environment than more modest development. And modest growth far more accurately matches the present small-town character of Winslow, which we believe is the island-wide desire for our urban center. The question our board raises is this: is this plan and EIS "managing" growth or accelerating and perhaps maximizing it? The plan, particularly Alternative Three, puts the Ferry/Gateway Districts in danger of becoming part of Seattle's growth management plan
rather than protecting any distinctive island character.”

To read more go here.

Excerpted from comments to Council by Kirsten Hytopoulos, moderator of Green Voices for Bainbridge Island.

"As with all Winslow Tomorrow related projects, the obvious question here is "What's the rush?"– especially when WSF is obviously strapped for cash, the economy is heading south and there appears to be a surplus of both condominium units and retail storefronts in Winslow. It appears that there is no rush and that these amendments are premature. Why premature? Because, in addition to a lack of present demand for additional capacity, I do not believe that these proposed changes have been properly vetted for the following reasons:

(1)This is another example of piecemeal planning with Island-wide implications. A vision for these districts must be examined and decided within the context of a plan for the entire Island taking into consideration everything from population distribution (e.g.discouraging development outside Winslow) to an Island-wide open space plan to budget restraints to water availability.

(2) The community is by and large not even aware that these decisions are being made, let alone properly informed of their opportunity to be heard on the matter. Council must not act without confidence that the proposed amendments represent a responsible plan for the Island that reflects the will of Island residents.

Staff has assured you, and the Planning Commission appears to have believed, that the proposed Comp Plan amendments are innocuous, and create a very "general" vision for the districts. I would respond that even a broad policy statement is a policy statement, and that it is imperative that you believe that the basic assumptions being put forth in these amendments reflect the community's vision and not that of staff, financial stakeholders or urban design consultants alone. Consider the decision to delete language specifying that the district is "not envisioned to be an extension of the Core" and the addition of language stating that new development in the Ferry district should "complement the character and vitality of the Core District". Some would argue that those changes amount to stating that we should have dense, homogeneous development from Ferncliff to Grow. If that is true, or could reasonably be argued at a later stage, then you must ask yourself if that is how the majority of Islanders want our downtown to grow. Or do we want to preserve key places, such as the semi-rural feeling of the gateway to our City and the scale of our main street?"

To read more go here.

Wherefore Art Thou Council?

2007-11-12T23:28:00.000-08:00

After years of successfully blaming our City Council for all that ails the City of Bainbridge Island, the Mayor and her administration are finally receiving a long overdue admonishment by the community. Island residents are becoming savvy to an imbalance of power and are finding that the agenda of a small group of private interests has supplanted the will of the community. As citizens call for a change to a Council-Manager form of government, or even to recall the Mayor, they are recognizing that what is needed is a structural change, not simply a change in personalities. However, at this pivotal moment it is critical that we not lose sight of the essential role our City Council has played in its own (and our own) undoing, and that we insist that our current and incoming Council Persons reestablish their roles as meaningful representatives of the entire Island community.

Change will not come easy, as the improper subordination of Council has been institutionalized on so many levels at City Hall. Our City Council has no dedicated staff, no office space, a meager meeting space and a $600 (why bother) monthly stipend for what is realistically a full-time job. For all appearances, members of Council are tolerated as occasional interlopers into the business of policy development and governance and as inconvenient obstacles that must be surmounted by City Staff as they drive the Mayor’s agenda forward. Council’s value appears to lie only in its ability to fund the projects brought before it. To this end, Council is generally left in the dark regarding complex policy proposals and projects, significant code changes are presented as minor housekeeping matters and agendas are often packed with substantive issues that demand far more than the allocated time or background data provided.

No One to Blame but Themselves

Council is neither without blame nor without authority to act against this marginalization of its legislative role. Under state laws RCW 35A11.020 and 35A12.90, Council “shall have all powers possible for a city or town to have under the Constitution of this state” including the powers to:

- Establish policy
- Adopt ordinances and resolutions
- Establish a budget
- Approve or amend the operating and capital budgets
- Define the functions, duties, and responsibilities of City officers and employees
- Enter into and approve contracts
- Regulate the acquisition, sale, ownership, and other disposition of real property
- Impose taxes
- Approve claims against the City
- Enact rules governing the City Council’s procedures and meetings

(excerpted from COBI City Council Legislative Protocol Manual)

By contrast, the duties and authority of the Mayor are largely limited to administration and enforcement of law and policy established by Council:

“The mayor shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, in charge of all departments and employees... (she) shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced ... and shall have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interests...the mayor shall be the official and ceremonial head of the city and shall represent the city on ceremonial occasions...”
(RCW 35A.12.100)

The Mayor’s policymaking role is essentially limited to the submission of proposals for Council consideration, including a draft annual budget. Council may reject any and all projects, policies and ordinances proposed by the administration, and is expected to establish its own long-term policy platform.

Yet, not only has Council failed to establish a solid legislative agenda of its own, but it has allowed the Mayor’s agenda to drive City policy and drain City resources even as it has doubted community support for that agenda. Council has missed countless opportunities to question the need for more consultants, to probe into the role of special interests in creating policy or to refuse to approve successive funding requests to study and plan for projects it had not initiated or had not yet approved. While on occasion some Council Members have opposed or even voted against the Mayor’s agenda items, more often than not, every item presented has been funded or approved.

Examples of these inexplicable missed opportunities abound. Why did Council willingly abdicate its power to approve contracts up to $100,000? Why did Council grant the Mayor authority to settle litigation under $50,000 without regard to the subject matter of the action? Why did Council allow the virtual rewriting of the Winslow Master Plan to apparently reflect the recommendations of a few special interests? Why did Council approve nearly $1 million dollars in consultant fees for public outreach and the preliminary design of the Winslow Way Streetscape? Who but Council bears responsibility for allowing, by action or inaction, the commitment of untold resources (more than $3 million in known costs to date) to advance plans to completely redefine the character and landscape of our island, without any evidence of widespread community support?

Time to Just Say No

Council has at times reined in an overreaching administration and staff. For example, Council positively exerted its authority when it refused to approve unreasonable funding requests related to the 2025 Growth Advisory Committee earlier this year. When planning staff came forth in May seeking funding to begin the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee before its final report had been provided to Council, the Council stood firm. After expressing surprise at learning that the committee had even concluded its business, Council rightfully refused the request as premature. To the chagrin of staff, when the report was finally provided to Council in June, it was “accepted” as a document, but Council chose to neither adopt its recommendations as policy nor to fund projects flowing from them until it could find adequate time to study the details of the report.

In the coming weeks, the current City Council will have many opportunities to show the community, the administration and incoming Council Members this same resolve and independence as it considers the Mayor’s proposed budget, the Capital Facilities Plan and a series of significant proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Ordinances.

In light of the magnitude of the Mayor’s policy agenda, and the community’s increasing opposition to it, Council must insist on adequate briefing materials prior to Council Meetings and, even more importantly, the time to evaluate, research and discuss the issues. This may require Council to refuse to consider some agenda items or to delay their consideration – a small price to pay for informed and thoughtful decision-making. It would also seem appropriate for Council to take long overdue advantage of its authority to provide itself with dedicated staff. According to the City Council Legislative Protocol Manual, Council is authorized to create a “Legislative Department” including staff positions to provide “assistance on legislative research, drafting of City policies and laws, as well as providing clerical support.”

One thing is certain: regardless of which structural or organizational changes Council pursues, our Island will not stand a chance without a commitment by Council to assert its broad and substantial powers and to ensure that community priorities, not private financial interests, guide policymaking and spending decisions at City Hall.

When Old is New and New is Old

2007-10-24T01:14:00.000-07:00

As we struggle to evaluate what is going on in City Hall today it is useful to look at where the City has been and what roles the various players have played throughout the City’s brief history. The Bainbridge Review, in its endorsement of John Waldo for City council, extols the fact that Waldo’s list of supporters includes two former Councilpersons "whose very names recall a time when councils forged consensus and got things done”. In the following piece, written in response to former Council Member Norm Wooldridge’s recent attack on incumbent candidate Bill Knobloch, former Councilperson Debbie Vann gives her perspective on how things “got done” in the “good old days”.

Republished with permission of the author.

It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Wooldridge has now chosen to attack Bill Knobloch by twisting what really happened during the first year he was on the Council. I feel that the record needs to be set straight. It is true that during Bill’s first year on Council, things were being shaken up and people who were in charge, the previous Mayor and some previous Council members, had strong negative reactions. The “Good ole’ boy” machine was being challenged and they didn’t like it. Mr. Waldo, then reporter for the Bainbridge Island Review newspaper, actively supported them.

At that time, the City administration was in bad shape. The City had never passed a state audit and in fact, the auditor told us that they couldn’t even begin to audit the books, they were such a mess. The Planning Department was completely dysfunctional due to poor leadership. Everyone, the development community and the environmental community, had been calling for a change for several years. Some bills to be invoiced through the Planning Department had not been sent out for two years, totaling over $250,000 of potential city income.

Contracts were awarded with no Council oversight to “friends of the City”, a direct quote from the then City Administrator. There was no citizen input into the budget and in fact, Council had one meeting to review and rubber stamp the Mayor’s budget. The City Administrator was at war with the finance director and they had not spoken to each other for two years.

The Council itself rarely allowed any citizen involvement in the legislative process. Council members didn’t even have their own email addresses. Council members sat on the boards of non-profits and still voted for City funding for them, a clear ethical violation. They were stalled over public works projects like getting sidewalks and bike lanes on Ericksen and the South End Sewer. As new Councilmembers, we were told by Mr. Wooldridge that we should have no input into legislation until we had been there for a year. He reacted strongly to our changes that increased citizen involvement and increased Council involvement in the budget process.

It was unfortunate that the newly elected Mayor, Darlene Kordonowy, was getting poor advice from those in charge of the City, the previous Mayor and long-term Council members like Mr. Wooldridge. She was encouraged to oppose attempts from Bill, Debbie Vancil and myself when we began to expose the mess in City Hall. However, the Mayor was also very concerned over the failed audits and began to see for herself the serious problems within the City. In her second year and with our strong support, she began to clean house and we got a new City Administrator, Planning Director, Finance Director, and Telecommunications Director.

The Mayor and Council began to work collaboratively with each other. We established a system where the Directors and Council agreed on work loads and together set up a list of legislative priorities for the year. We put in place a new Council manual that detailed Council and Administrative responsibilities.

Those were tumultuous times, but out of that came a City that now passes the state audits with accolades from the auditors, a more efficient Planning Department and City Administration. During Bill’s first three years on Council numerous public works projects were completed, the public became actively involved with legislative issues and some great legislation was passed. One moment stands out for me. At the end of our first year, Bill brought in several large stacks of paper that held all of the legislation we had passed and plopped them down on the podium. We really got things done.

Today, Bill is not the problem with the City Council and the Mayor and in fact, he works quite well with the Mayor and staff. The people responsible, Council members Llewellyn, Scales and Tooloee, are the very people that were supported by the “Good ole’ boys”, including Mr. Wooldridge. Now, they want to put yet another one of their group on Council, John Waldo. I have seen enough of their impact on the City to know that the last thing we need on City Council is yet another voice for dissent, disruption, and poorly planned and thought out legislation.

Dismantling a Community to Build a City

2007-10-17T12:05:00.002-07:00

As the written expression of our community’s values and goals, one would expect to find in our Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan* the ammunition to stop the advancing army of consultants, planners, designers and downtown property owners determined to undertake a massive redevelopment of our downtown. Unfortunately, our Comp Plan no longer offers the protection and guidance it once did, following what might be described as a protracted stealth attack – a piecemeal dismantling that has resulted in the codification of policies that many feel are inconsistent with the goals and vision of the Plan, and the community that created it.

One of the sections of the Plan most acutely hit by this concerted effort to redefine the character of Bainbridge Island is the Winslow Master Plan, which was hijacked by an extensive codification of dozens of Winslow Tomorrow recommendations last November that few citizens are aware of. (That’s right, Winslow Tomorrow is adopted policy.) As this year draws to a close, those amendments to the Plan are coming to fruition in the form of several controversial projects including proposed height and density increases for the Winslow Core District, the Streetscape, Parking Garage and plans for the upzoning and commercialization of the Ferry/Gateway Districts.

A review of the 2006 updates to the Master Plan and the proposed amendments now before the Planning Commission leaves us wondering how the Administration managed to so quietly slip detailed plans for the redevelopment of Winslow into our Comprehensive Plan. It also raises the question of whether the public will demand a stop to the expansion and implementation of these plans before it is too late.

Transit Villages and Core Extensions

The Planning commission is currently reviewing a series of Comp Plan amendments that would further amend the Winslow Master Plan, less than a year after its radical revision in November 2006. These proposed ordinances are said to “provide the policy platform” for the Ferry/Gateway Districts, yet we are assured by City staff and the Planning Commission that this is “just policy” and that no final decisions regarding the design of the districts will be made until the public has weighed in on the alternative Urban Design Plans for the districts during the “Implementation” phase next year.

With all due respect to staff, now is in fact the critical time for public comment. By definition, policy directs action. The policies being added to the Winslow Master Plan, along with those that were embedded there last November and other proposed code changes, may not finalize all of the details, but they surely preclude many alternative visions for the districts, including any that could be legitimately called “do nothing”.

When Citizens, or even Council Persons for that matter, come forth in 2008, to protest the basic assumptions of the proposed designs, staff will be the first to point to the Winslow Master Plan to demonstrate that most of the significant assumptions have already been adopted as policy. (Witness recent discussions between staff and Council regarding the implementation of Winslow Tomorrow policies in the Core District)

One of the policy changes currently under consideration, which addresses a very basic assumption, is the following:

WMP 2-10.2 “The district should be redeveloped to function as an extension of downtown Winslow, with complimentary uses, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, public gathering spaces and unique design features.” (emphasis added)

This extension of the Core district east to Ferncliff would directly contradict the current policy stated in the Master Plan. The Plan states that new development in the Ferry/Gateway districts “is not envisioned as an extension of the Core, but rather a new neighborhood.” That language will be stricken by the proposed amendments, as will provisions limiting development to “residential with small amounts of service retail and office development.” Instead, it is proposed that this extension of the Winslow Core will be “a pedestrian transit oriented, mixed use neighborhood with higher density residential development, commercial development and some retail” or, as consultants describe it, a “Transit Village”.

The proposed amendments also suggest removing the 2,000 square foot limit for retail services in the district. A 100-foot transition area – landscaping buffer and lower heights – currently mandated by the Master Plan to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods, would be reduced to an area of an unspecified width.

Outside of the Comp Plan amendment process, the City's consultants call for zoning changes to increase building heights and density in the Ferry/ Gateway districts identical to those recently proposed for the Core District– up to 55-foot building heights and up to 2.5 FAR (density). Maximum lot coverage in the Gateway District would go from 35% to 75%.

Looking to the Urban Design Plan alternatives prepared by the City’s consultants, who note on their website that they aim to “add a sense of place” to the Island, it would appear that these extensive changes to the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances are all but presumed.

Going Backward to go Forward

When the original Winslow Master Plan was drafted in 1998, it was understood that the committee formed to draft it and the public meetings held to invite public comment on it were creating real policy that would determine the future of Winslow. By contrast, the Winslow Tomorrow effort, comprised of an appointed “community congress” was never described to the community as creating development policy for Winslow. In fact, former Winslow Tomorrow project director Sandy Fischer was quoted as saying that Winslow Tomorrow was not a development plan and should not be used as one. And yet, to date, dozens of select recommendations of Winslow Tomorrow have been inserted with great detail into the Winslow Master Plan, and thus are now City policy.

So is that it then? Has the boat sailed? Not necessarily. Our City Council can choose not to adopt the Ferry-Gateway Comp Plan amendments in November (yet another significant and potentially controversial public hearing planned for the holiday season) and not to adopt proposed increases in height, density and other zoning changes as they are presented. The Council can also choose not to implement the policies already adopted, and could even reconsider them. Of course none of these actions are likely to occur, unless and until the public makes it known that these policies do not reflect our vision for the Island and that we will no longer tolerate the wholesale redrafting of our Comprehensive Plan and dismantling of our community by planners, consultants and a handful of property owners.

The Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the currently proposed Comp Plan amendments on Thursday October 25, 7:00 pm, in the City Council chambers.

The deadline to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Study for the Ferry/Gateway will be November 9, 2007.

*The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the growth and establishes the long-range vision for the Island, identifying important characteristics that the community desires to retain, promote or foster. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates goals and policies that guide the community toward that vision, including the Five Overriding Principles of the Plan:

Preserve the special character of the Island;
Protect fragile water resources;
Foster diversity;
Consider costs and benefits to property owners when making land use decisions;
Promote sustainable development.

(excerpted from the City's website)

Downtown Conspiracy 101

2007-10-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

Take one part over-representation of financial stakeholders in downtown planning, add a series of proposed projects that remove all hindrances to increased height and density, sprinkle in a few “amenities” to woo the public – be sure to leave all public comment in a box on the shelf – and stir it up with a few threats and misrepresentations. Bake in an oven warmed by a rush to beat the 2008 Council. Voila: Winslow Tomorrow Surprise.

If Saturday’s editorial page is all the Winslow Way gang and their good friends at the Review can come up with to dispute allegations of a “downtown conspiracy” (their words, not ours) then perhaps we’re on to something.

The exact ingredients may vary – only the cooks know the secret recipe – but what is clear is that there are many individual pieces of information and series of events that don’t add up, and the spin and blatant “errors” on last week’s editorial page haven’t explained any of them.

The Secret of the Hidden LID

The feigned shock from property owners and the City Administration (not to mention the editor of our fine paper of record) to the suggestion of an LID (Local Improvement District) to help finance the Streetscape would be comical, were it not so serious a matter for the rest of us.

We have been told that (1) an LID would not be appropriate for the Streetscape because we all benefit from it and that (2) an LID would fail because property owners won’t go for it. Winslow Way property owner Bruce Weiland goes so far as to state, in his op ed piece attacking Bob Fortner and the BRG in last Saturday’s Review, that “the City, by law, cannot impose an LID; it must be approved by 60% of the parcels being taxed”. That statement is wrong on so many levels, that one has to wonder why Weiland, a lawyer, would not do his homework before publicly admonishing a fellow citizen’s understanding of the law.

An LID can indeed be imposed by a municipality, though it can be blocked if it’s opposed by property owners representing 60% of the of the dollar amount assessed (not % of parcels). In other words only 41% of the affected financial interests need be in favor of the LID. Thus, in this case, the City could impose an LID and leave it up to the property owners to determine how essential this project really is. Unless of course we want to capitulate to the threat of LID protests in the same manner the City has been seen as capitulating to the threat of lawsuits.

In response to the argument that an LID is not fair because the Streetscape benefits us all, we need only look to Seattle where LID’s have been considered for both the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the Lake Union Streetcar. LID’s are standard operating procedure for financing a broad range of capital improvements that confer a special benefit to adjacent landowners even as they may provide a benefit to the entire community.

So, if LID’s are so ubiquitous, why the claims of impossibility from the City administration and why the disinfomation campaign in the Review? The answer may lie in a plan to reserve that funding mechanism to fund the proposed parking garage.

Streetscape project Manager Chris Wierzbicki told a friend of the PostScript in August, that an LID would not be appropriate for sidewalks and street trees, but would be appropriate for, say, a parking garage. Lo and behold, the funding recommendations for the Haggar-Scribner/ City parking structure, to be presented to Council tonight, include a special assessment for benefited properties. Recall that Tom Haggar, his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Don Audleman (of Capstone Partners, technical consultant on the $127,000 parking garage feasibility study – yes that’s taxpayer money) are all members of the Streetscape Advisory Committee, and that Dr. Haggar also sits on the committee that created the Streetscape funding strategy.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this apparent hypocrisy is finessed at tonight’s meeting.

The Case of the Missing Fire Flow

Within the Water Resources Element of our Comprehensive Plan is a discussion of “fire flow”, and other water storage requirements, for the downtown water system. According to that discussion, the Winslow Water System will not be able to provide adequate service (including fire flow) for projected growth without replacement of “undersized distribution pipelines in the system”. Specific recommendations are given for Winslow Way upgrades, and Winslow Way Streetscape documents cite those Comp Plan recommendations as the basis for current plans.

Why does “fire flow” matter? Inadequate fire flow means no redevelopment of the affected properties and the word on the street is that what has kept heights down on Winslow Way for so long has been fire safety issues – fire department ladder height, the need to underground power lines and inadequate fire flow. The fire department now has the truck it needs, and in 2009, the Streetscape project will take care of the last two requirements. And so the argument goes that even the basic utility work on Winslow Way will create a special benefit to property owners and should be subject to an LID.

City staff has refuted this claim, stating that the same diameter pipes would be needed for current zoning as would be needed for proposed 5-story building heights. Putting aside proposed upzoning (a potential red herring), is the relevant issue current zoning capacity, or the actual ability to build to that capacity? Is it the City’s responsibility to use our tax dollars to provide a property owner with the additional infrastructure needed to maximize the use of his property? Or are such upgrades valuable improvements to his property?

This is how the Water and Sewer Report, produced by City consultants for the Streetscape project, describe the situation:

“The proposed improvements are the minimum required to meet projected growth along Winslow Way as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note the improvements are not being dictated by future multi-story build-out along Winslow Way but are needed regardless of redevelopment to meet projected domestic and fire demands.”(emphasis added)

Clearly, the infrastructure need is for future development along Winslow Way – whatever sized structures are used to accommodate the projected growth. Thus, we are talking about an improvement that is a prerequisite to redevelopment. It’s incontestable that such an improvement confers a measurable, and, in this case, substantial benefit to Winslow Way property owners.

Something untoward seems to be going on downtown. Has the administration played a role in deceiving Council and the public about the viability of LID financing for the Streetscape project in order to reserve that option for the financing of the Haggar-Scribner parking garage? Has the administration played a role in misleading the community about the relationship between the Streetscape project, the proposed parking garage and the ability of Winslow Way property owners to build taller and bigger buildings, whether under current or proposed zoning?

Without credible answers to such important questions, increasing numbers of reasonable citizens will find themselves wondering whether there might not indeed be a "conspiracy" directing the redevelopment of our downtown.

As Easy as ... One, Two, Three

2007-10-02T18:43:00.000-07:00

The process by which the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape has been developed and is currently heading toward implementation, is providing a crash course in the brutal realities of Bainbridge Island politics for those who are paying attention. Unless Council takes a dramatically new course soon, it appears that the Mayor will be well on her way to implementing an agenda that threatens to have grave and widespread consequences for us all.

Those familiar with how business is done at City Hall will recognize the three cardinal rules at play over the last few months. The question before the Council, and the community, is whether this time Council will have the political stamina to break the rules.

Rule #1: Citizens Shall be Seen and Not Heard

In prior articles, we have discussed the heavy influence of a handful of Citizens, many of them downtown property owners, in the latter stages of the Winslow Tomorrow process and on other downtown related committees. Not only are these special interests heavily represented on the Streetscape advisory committee, but amazingly, the controversial, and arguably self serving, funding scheme for the Streetscape was crafted by these same individuals working alongside redevelopment consultant Chuck DePew and Councilperson Kjell Stoknes (see sidebar for more on Mr. Stoknes).

But what about the other 24,000 voices on the Island? To be sure, an incredible amount of lip service is given to public process at City Hall. From the comments made by many advocates for Winslow Tomorrow, you’d think dissenting Citizens had hijacked the process. In fact, a consistent pattern has developed of highly structured “open houses” and other “town meetings” where the message is tightly controlled and the outcome appears to many attendees as a forgone conclusion.

The Streetscape group boasts heartily of the support shown for its preliminary plans at the 4th of July festival. But what about the other two citizen meetings conducted for the project since July? Might not the community, and Council, be interested in the opinions of average citizens provided with details – including costs and funding strategies – and the time to reflect and ask questions?

Unfortunately, we haven’t heard much in the way of an actual summary of public comment from these events, neither have we heard from the Winslow Way business owners (the tenants) nor specifically from the Winslow water and sewer ratepayers.

Perhaps these two questions from a City comment sheet provided at the last public Streetscape meeting say it all (See here for one couple’s responses.):

“8. Do you feel you have a right to say how Winslow Way
should be rebuilt? For what reasons?

9. Do other islanders have the same right to say how your street should be rebuilt? For what reasons?”

Ouch.

Rule #2 The Mayor Shall get her Way

There’s a reason that the Mayor opened last night’s budget presentation looking like the cat that ate the canary. In effect she did when she managed to push her legacy building agenda forward last Wednesday night despite a lack of support by a majority of the seated Council.

The dance between Council and the Administration around the Capital Facilities Plan last month created an ideal opportunity to witness the results of this total disregard of the Administration for Council’s attempts to set policy consistent with community priorities.

At that September 12th meeting, Councilperson Tooloee, often criticized for the tenor of his presentation, but arguably one of the strongest voices on Council, contrasted the spending priorities Council had presented the Administration with those the Administration offered back to Council in the Capital Facilities Plan. According to Tooloee:

“Council directed that total investments in open space, non motorized transportation, affordable housing, and community facilities over the next six years be set at $18 million, $18 million, $11 million, and $5 million, respectively.

The Administration has ignored that policy and drastically slashed the total investments in these areas in the next six years to $10 million, $10 million, $3 million, and $1 million, respectively. These cutbacks are not in line with community values or needs.”

Tooloee went on to demonstrate that the Administration had also chosen to disregard Council’s direction as to the ratio of Voter approved bonds to Council approved (councilmanic) bonds:

“When council adopted the CFP last year by a unanimous vote it limited council-approved bonds to $15.5 million over six years (down from over $35 million as proposed by the Administration) and slated $31 million of voter-approved bonds, to be approved by the voters in 2008 to be sure that they agreed with the priorities established by Council.

The proposed CFP hikes reliance on council-approved bonds (which some disparage as credit card debt!) by 20% to $18 million and cuts voter-approved bonds (the best way for voters to say if they agree with the City) by almost 70% to $10.5 million. The funding mix should give a much greater voice to the voters.”

These fundamental splits between the majority of the Council and the Mayor and Administration, on both spending priorities and funding mechanisms, and the Administration’s attempts to thwart Council’s efforts to set the policy it believes to reflect community values, resulted in some trouble for the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Project funding proposal when it was first presented to Council on September 5th. Staff was directed by Council to provide alternatives to the controversial proposal, which relied on council approved bonds, significantly increased fees for Winslow water and sewer users and required no contribution from the owners of benefited properties.

Last Wednesday, Council was presented a barely modified version of the original funding proposal. This time, however, Councilperson Bob Scales was not present due to a planned absence. The result was a foreseeable tie (for those on the inside who knew which Councilpersons would be present) and the Mayor was able to cast the, marginally legal, deciding vote. What is most amazing about the vote is not the incredible fortuitousness of the timing of the vote, but the incredible care that had been taken to craft a motion that the mayor, who cannot break ties to expend funds, could legally vote upon.

Rule #3 Council Shall Bear all Blame

And so, as has often been the case before, the Mayor has placed those on Council who do not support her agenda in a politically untenable position. They can choose to fund the $20.6 million option using the Administration’s preferred funding strategy, or they can refuse to fund the project, a decision which will be billed by the Administration, and the(ir) Bainbridge Review, as a querulous and irresponsible refusal to fund the necessary replacement of leaking pipes.

This is where the breakdown at City Hall has cost us dearly in the past. As much as the Administration has been expert at depriving Council of information and staff, manipulating process, timing and the law to pressure and confuse Council into approving the Mayor’s agenda, Council could have, and indeed has a duty to, refuse to cooperate until the terms are changed.

The result of not stopping the Mayor’s agenda earlier, has been a slow painful descent into a special interest version of Winslow Tomorrow, with the Streetscape being the first of a impending series of expensive and monumental decisions that will change the face of the City forever.

And so, faced with a politically painful decision – to fund or not to fund the Streetscape – what will our Council do?

Time to Break the Rules

That self-satisfied look on the Mayor’s face last night, quickly dissolved when her own loyal (and impeccably professional) finance director made cautionary remarks about the funding of these “extremely large projects for a city of this size.” Mr. Konkel’s remarks when taken in conjunction with the failure of the current process to fairly assess and consider the public will, give great credibility to the position taken thus far by a majority of Council. Council must be called upon to continue to put the community’s best interests before any personal or political concerns.

The mayor’s vote also occurred in a time of increasing calls for a change to a Council-Manager form of government (a thinly veiled attack on her performance), and has incited more than a few of those voices to call outright for a recall election. This decline in support for the Mayor’s agenda also serves to strengthen the mandate for Council’s refusal to cooperate

Councilperson Bill Knobloch, has correctly pointed out that “this is where the rubber meets the road” when addressing the fact that there is only so much money for so many projects. This is also where the rubber meets the road for Council’s success or failure as a political body tasked with representing, and indeed defending, the interests of the community above all else.

Committees, Commissions & Boards, Oh My!

2007-09-25T21:57:00.000-07:00

Two controversies brewing on the Open Space Commission raise questions about much more than the process by which the City selects and negotiates potential land acquisitions. They are representative of a disturbing trend in Bainbridge Island politics. From Winslow Tomorrow to the 2025 Growth Advisory Committee to the Open Space Commission, the City seems to take a casual approach to preserving an appearance of fairness when it comes to involving potential or even current, financial stakeholders in policy development and planning.

The Inside Scoop

The most troublesome of the recent Open Space incidents involves the relationship between Tim Bailey, a member of the Open Space Commission, and developer Kelly Samson. Bailey, an Island realtor, is Samson’s partner in at least two real estate investment companies, including Bainbridge Community Development LLC, which pulled off a real estate coup earlier this year when it purchased the much sought after Government Way property before anyone even knew it was on the market.

At some point during the time that the Commission was contemplating its most recent, and somewhat controversial, open space recommendation, known as the Williams Property, Samson was notified of the potential purchase and was presumably informed that the Commission was considering working with a developer to make the purchase possible. The subject property was neither on the market, nor did the Commission openly seek participation in the purchase from the community, the Land Trust or any other developers, investors or organizations. Yet somehow, Mr. Samson had knowledge of the proposal, made an offer the property, and the Commission looked no further for a purchaser with whom to partner.

Under the most recently publicized version of the deal, the city would buy a portion of the property in conjunction with Samson’s purchase and agree to numerous restrictions that will benefit the developable lots on Samson’s portion. (That deal, which was turned down by Council in August, is currently being renegotiated.)

While we may never know if it was Bailey who brought the deal to Samson, the fact that there is any question about a potential conflict of interest on such an influential commission is troublesome. We will also never know what other possible scenarios might have been available to the City with the involvement of another developer, the Land Trust or any other potential community partner in the purchase.

In other cities, the business relationship between Mr. Bailey and Mr. Samson might be considered an unacceptable conflict of interest. However, one need only look to the membership rolls of certain key citizen Commissions, Committees and Boards to see that this is simply business as usual on Bainbridge Island.

So Many Familiar Faces

Winslow Tomorrow, heralded by its supporters as a broad-based community effort, is in fact arguably another circumstance where the lines between private and public interests have been blurred. At the project’s inception, the Winslow Tomorrow Community Congress was the focus. While there have been some allegations that portions of the Congress were overly directed or predetermined, in particular the Parking Committee, the Congress appears to have included a reasonably fair cross-section of direct stake holders and other citizens.

Unfortunately, as critics have noted, the process became increasingly exclusive and non-public as it progressed into the "recommendations" phase, where citizen involvement was largely distilled down to staff, consultants and the Feasibility Grou p. Given the significance of this phase, where specific goals were to be set based upon interpretations of the earlier processes, the composition of the Feasibility Group is worth noting.

While it is not easy to discern the real estate holdings or other relevant financial interests of every participant in the Winslow Tomorrow project, or any other City endeavor, a cursory search reveals that at least three of the eleven members of the feasibility group are major Winslow landowners with plans to develop their properties, and another of the eleven is a land use attorney who has represented at least one of the landowners on the committee. Of the remaining seven, at least six are either planning, development or real estate professionals, work for the City or have another direct financial tie to the Winslow Core.

It’s worth asking whether this group, which appears to have operated largely out of the public eye, is a reasonable mix of community interests. How can City staff and consultants working day in and day out with the same financial stakeholders*, and other interested parties, maintain a reasonable professional distance and properly evaluate their participation in light of the potential, or obvious, conflicts of interest? Should our City staff and consultants, and indeed our elected officials, be put in the position of having to make these evaluations?

Who you gonna call?

All of this leaves one wondering what checks and balances exist for vetting potential conflicts of interest within any of the Citizen Commissions, Committees or Boards. The recently empaneled ethics board will not have jurisdiction over these appointed citizen advisors, so it will have to be by some other mechanism that alleged conflicts of interest or improprieties are investigated and resolved.

This brings us back to the other simmering controversy on the Open Space Commission. The last open space purchase proposed by the Commission and approved by Council, the Meigs Farm property, has come under some scrutiny following the release of a new appraisal suggesting the property may be worth less than 50% of the value paid by the City. The Open Space Commission has appointed two of its own members, Tim Bailey and former mayor Dwight Sutton, to investigate the conflict between the two appraisals. Some in the community have raised concerns regarding a possible fox guarding the hen house scenario. We’ll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals and whether the Mayor or Council will call for an additional independent study. In any case, the broader issue remains, and demands that the community take a much closer look at how the deals are being made and who is pulling the strings.

* Tim Bailey : 2025 Growth Advisory Committee (chair), Open Space Commission, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group
Tom Haggar: Winslow Tomorrow Congress, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee, Haggar-Scribner/City Garage Study
John Waldo: 2025 Growth Advisory Committee, Winslow Tomorrow Congress – Committee Chair, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee

The State of the City

2007-09-22T12:14:00.001-07:00

A compelling assessment of the state of our city by the Bainbridge Resource Group, originally published as a Guest Editorial in the Review (9/22/07) republished here with permission of the authors.

Our City Government is not just dysfunctional, it is broken. Communications between the Executive and the City Council are irreparably fractured. Decision-critical information and analyses are withheld, acrimony has replaced collaboration, and power grabbing is the default form of governance style as competitive parties seek dominance in the decision making process. Forget the statutory distinction in the roles for the Mayor and Council!

The longstanding power struggle between the Mayor and Council over policy setting dominance is exposed. Recent actions by the Mayor appear to be an escalation, evidenced by the withdrawal of staff support to council committees.

For its part, the Council has abrogated responsibility in its acquiescence. The escalation in city spending has resulted in pushing revenue and expense so close to one another that any perturbation in the economy could result in serious financial peril. Over $5M a year has been spent on outside consultants without an accountability check and the Council has allowed the hiring of consultants with obvious financial stakes in the outcome of their reports.

Earlier this year Administration severely curtailed staff support to Council. This led to the unhealthy elimination of checks and balances, tolerated by the Council, which has no independent staff and therefore limited ability to perform relevant analyses outside the context established by the Administration. This circumstance essentially removes the Council and the community from the democratic process. In this milieu our broken government seeks to pass a 2008 budget and adopt a more than $100M Capital Plan-a daunting task in any year.

Complicating things, Winslow Tomorrow, is the most capital intensive undertaking in city history. With its many complex components, WT is now being forced into this impaired, overburdened and ill-informed decision chain by the Executive. The bewildering challenges of determining who pays for what and with what form of borrowed money needs careful deliberation.

Parking illustrates the complexity of just one element of WT. At Administration’s behest, which seems to have bypassed the many less costly alternatives suggested by the WT Parking Group, the Council authorized a feasibility study for a parking garage. Though it is early in the process, there are concerns that need to be addressed. Estimated costs now far exceed the original $20,000 per space, and don’t include the cost to purchase additional land for road access or account for the cost of losing 129 spaces at City Hall.

Ease of access will be important if the garage is to have the intended benefits. Tucked away in the Capital Plan is $2M for acquisition of the Classic Cycle Shop to make way for improved street access to the garage from Winslow Way-the same street that is envisioned to be less car intensive and pedestrian friendly. Further, the consultants advise early discussions with the owners of Madrone Lane (a privately owned street with considerable parking) to add another access into the garage. If it could be bought, the cost is unknown, but the impact is obvious.
Ten years ago Team Winslow merchants banded together to block a variance that would have permitted a curb cut opposite Madrone Lane for parking access. If one was a bad idea then are two now an improvement? When Council meets next Wednesday they are expected to approve the Streetscape Project and its funding sources. Does this imply approval of these new intersections which have yet to be discussed at the Council? Will they have the engineering studies to back the assertions made by the Administration?

The garage is only one example of the dozens of controversial elements to emerge from Winslow Tomorrow following the disbanding of the community volunteers. Its potential impacts and complexity require a very thorough vetting. Can that happen in this environment? Will we trade WT off against Affordable Housing, or other capital projects? If so, how will we make those decisions?

As if there were not enough projects under consideration, the Gateway Project at the Ferry Terminal was announced this week. It too is redevelopment with implications for Downtown with additional residential and commercial space being proposed. Driven by the Ferry System it has now entered the imperiled decision chain!

A broken government cannot effectively prepare balanced information, conduct open deliberations with the input of citizens or arrive at satisfactory decisions that resonate with stated community values and vision. Projects in the decision chain are gargantuan in their appetite for capital, have long term implications that are poorly analyzed and are based on assumptions yet to be thoroughly vetted. None should be authorized.

A broken government should not be permitted to do anything more daunting than pass an operating budget to assure continuity of basic city functions until balance is restored. Decisions in the current environment have the potential to be counter to the long term interests of the community.

The time has come for the community of Bainbridge Island to insist that its government be representative and respectful of its values. This means that the Mayor and Council adhere to statutatory responsibilities and collaborate, communicate, compromise and commit. Not-with-standing the many good qualities and intentions of these individuals, this is unlikely to occur after the recent consultant led effort to improve relations failed. Nor is the election of new members to the council the long-term solution, since the flawed governmental structure will still be in place.

In the short term, the Council has the legal authority to insist on processes that are open and subject to appropriate deliberation. At a minimum the Council should have the courage to vote itself analytical staff to assist in processing the paper storm.

In the long term, if our City Hall cannot regain balance, integrity and fiscal sanity, the community may need to seriously consider changing to a more accountable and responsive Council-Manager form of government.

Settling for Less and Losing Even More

2007-09-17T23:37:00.001-07:00

There have long been indications that City Hall is overly susceptible to litigation pressure from the moneyed interests on the Island. Unfortunately, as non-elected citizens, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to monitoring how the City manages its litigation portfolio, as virtually all discussion and negotiation occur behind the veil of executive session. However, sometimes the results of these efforts to appease the disgruntled citizen come to light and demand our attention. Last year, it was docks on Blakely Harbor. This year, it’s patio houses along the Wing Point Ravine.

As a community we are deeply affected by the financial realities of handling constant litigation. Frivolous, legitimate, malicious or well-intentioned, lawsuits bleed the coffers and are a distraction from the real business of running a city government. Therefore, they should be settled when appropriate. But not at all costs. Re-writing laws, manipulating public policy or making special exceptions to satisfy a complainant jeopardizes the integrity and viability of the government and its policies.

Quid Pro Quo

Capstone Partners, dissatisfied with the Hearing Examiner’s (HEX) decision denying its application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build 11 houses along a ravine near Wing Point Country Club, filed a lawsuit for damages against the City in August of 2006, one week after filing an appeal of the HEX decision. In July of this year, in an apparent attempt to settle the damages claim, the Mayor authorized the attorney for the City to enter into a stipulation of facts in support of and calling for a remand of the CUP matter to the HEX. The Superior Court accepted the stipulation and remanded the case.

The legal authority to authorize the stipulation to the remand, the subject of an earlier article on this blog, is not dispositive of the question of whether this remand and the context in which it occurred are appropriate. The facts available to the public suggest that even if the mayor had had the authority to agree to a legitimate remand, the decision to remand in this case, in the absence of newly discovered evidence and in the context of a settlement agreement, was at best contrary to the public good. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to whether the Mayor had authority to settle the damages claim at all.

As discussed previously on this blog, there appears to be neither newly discovered evidence nor a clear mistake justifying a remand to the hearing examiner. The issue could have been appropriately litigated before the Superior Court, with the City advocating for its Hearing Examiner’s application of its land use code, and with the Court making a decision as to the appropriateness of a remand. But instead the City, at the behest of the Mayor, agreed to the remand in consideration for the dismissal of the damages claim.

Money Changes Everything

As a general rule, the City Council has final authority over the settlement of lawsuits. In March of this year, the City Council, at the request of the administration, granted the Mayor the authority to settle claims by or against the City “in an amount of $50,000 or less”. In the damages claim at hand, Capstone sought relief under RCW 64.40.020 and alleged that the HEX had acted in an “illegal and/or arbitrary and capricious” manner (a high standard consistent with the deference generally granted to governmental action). The damages alleged included “expenses and losses, including lost sales and profits, enhanced construction costs...” and “costs and attorneys fees”.

Clearly, were the plaintiffs to prevail, potential damages would far exceed $50,000. Clearly, Capstone would never have considered settling for an amount less than $50,000, as that would not have even paid their legal bills. And so the question remains: Under what authority did the Mayor act to settle the Capstone lawsuit?

Even if the Mayor had had the authority to settle the damages claim, a critical public policy question remains. Should the outcome, or even status, of a land use decision ever be on the negotiating table when the Mayor, or Council, is contemplating settling a claim against the City? There can be no dispute as to the answer to that question. We are a society of laws. We expect laws and policies to be applied as fairly and consistently as possible. We expect those we entrust with applying the law to correct mistakes made in the application of the law (to reverse, remand or withdraw) but not to change the rules of the game arbitrarily for privileged members of the community. Aside from the fundamental unfairness to the rest of the community who must abide by the rules, and the implications for whatever public good the law was attempting to protect, what message does this send to those with the financial ability and will to sue over any legal action that causes them inconvenience or discomfort?

Whatever the outcome of the Capstone controversy, perhaps it’s time for the City Council to take another look at the scope of authority that it actually granted to the Mayor to settle claims. Was it ever intended that the Mayor, independent of Council, could settle claims, like Capstone, where the actual relief sought is not in the form of monetary damages but in a favorable land use decision? And perhaps Council should revisit the associated grant of authority to the Mayor to approve contracts valued up to $100,000 (recall the $25,000 no bid contract to Capstone for the parking garage). Surely, decisions concerning such significant amounts of our tax money and critical legal issues should be vetted by more than one person and through a more transparent process.

The HEX is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Capstone matter on September 27th.