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)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Time is of the Essence
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wherefore Art Thou Council?
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
When Old is New and New is Old
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Dismantling a Community to Build a City
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:
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Downtown Conspiracy 101
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
As Easy as ... One, Two, Three
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Committees, Commissions & Boards, Oh My!
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 Group. 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 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 Group. 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
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The State of the City
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.
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Settling for Less and Losing Even More
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.
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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Out of the Loop and Out in the Cold
They’ve been denied meeting space, they’ve been denied information and they’ve been denied staff time. Now they will be denied the right to convene committee meetings. Here is the response of one City Councilor to this latest blow to Council authority and autonomy (Originally e-mailed to the administration and Council, forwarded to us by a contributor):
“This is absolutely astonishing. The administration has unilaterally decided to cancel meetings of the standing committees of the city council. It has also gone ahead and put out public notices that it has done so. All without consulting with council or with the committees who set their own agendas. We have seen several instances of the administration unilaterally including things on or pulling things from committee meetings agendas over the last four years. In each instance that I was aware of they were reminded that they do not have the authority to do so without the consent of the committee members. This one steals the prize for audacious and improper conduct. Whether you look for separation of powers or checks and balances or you believe in simple courtesy and cooperative processes this is outrageous. Have a nice weekend”.
Nezam (Tooloee)
“This is absolutely astonishing. The administration has unilaterally decided to cancel meetings of the standing committees of the city council. It has also gone ahead and put out public notices that it has done so. All without consulting with council or with the committees who set their own agendas. We have seen several instances of the administration unilaterally including things on or pulling things from committee meetings agendas over the last four years. In each instance that I was aware of they were reminded that they do not have the authority to do so without the consent of the committee members. This one steals the prize for audacious and improper conduct. Whether you look for separation of powers or checks and balances or you believe in simple courtesy and cooperative processes this is outrageous. Have a nice weekend”.
Nezam (Tooloee)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Big Concrete for Little Winslow
What has 1,000 parking spaces, is one and a half football fields long and runs from Madrone to Ericksen? How about a mega- parking garage proposed for the heart of Winslow. If anyone had any doubts left about the vision for our City shared by a small group of property owners, urban planners, realtors and architects, surely this will be the nail in the coffin of that doubt.
The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.
With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?
For Love of Parking
According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.
Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.
Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?
Promises, Promises
In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.
Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.
B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)
Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)
As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.
Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.
Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge
On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.
But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.
For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.
To read the entire feasibility study go here.
The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.
With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?
For Love of Parking
According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.
Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.
Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?
Promises, Promises
In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.
Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.
B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)
Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)
As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.
Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.
Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge
On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.
But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.
For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.
To read the entire feasibility study go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
