The Bainbridge Island Postscript

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)