Talking Around the Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

A Roadmap to Leadership

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

Published with the author's permission.

_________________________

Bob’s 10 Step Program for Municipal Financial Success

Proposal for the Bainbridge Island City Council

from Bob Scales

Bainbridge Island City Councilmember 2004-2007

1. Trust but verify

2. Don’t ignore City Council policies and priorities

3. Sell surplus City property

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

5. Use consultants sparingly and cautiously

6. Keep your promises.

7. Don’t break the law

8. Be an advocate

9. Don’t make excuses – make decisions

10. Find out what went wrong

1. Trust but verify

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

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

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

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

2. Don’t ignore City Council policies and priorities

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

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

Here are a couple of examples:

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

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

3. Sell surplus City property

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

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

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

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

5. Use consultants sparingly and cautiously

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

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

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

Funding to be Determined II

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

Phasing the Pain

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

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

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

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

On a Wing and a Prayer

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

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

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

Let Them Eat Cake

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

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

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

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

Funding to be Determined I

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

Streetscape Switch and Bait

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


Robin Hood in Reverse

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


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


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


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


All Signs Point to Winslow Tomorrow

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


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


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


Whose Car is it Anyway?

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


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


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


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


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



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

Undoing the People’s Work

. .

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

Our Tax Dollars at Work

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

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

Representing the Few

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

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

Silencing the Many

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

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

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

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

The Power of Information

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

It’s All in the Timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s All in the Translation

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

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

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

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

It’s All in the Fine Print

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

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

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

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

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