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)
Showing posts with label COBI Finances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COBI Finances. Show all posts
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.
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 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 4, 2007
Urban Renewal, Bainbridge Style
Breaking news: Winslow Way is dead and someone forgot to tell us.
And to think most of us thought we had a pretty good thing going on down there. Apparently, it’s in truly dire straights, because an internationally renowned consulting firm has been hired to manage it’s “redevelopment” while the City administration is angling for grant money aimed at revitalizing “economically challenged communities”.
Heery International was retained, to the tune of $1 million, not only to help the City create a shiny new main street, but also to convince the public of a pressing need to borrow $21 million dollars to rip out the entire street and risk bankrupting our local merchants. We’re not talking about broken pipes here. We’re talking about replacing every single element of the street. And we’re talking about each and every one of us paying for it, though some will pay much more than others and it won’t be the Winslow Way property owners.
The Parking Space Pyramid Scheme
At least we’ll finally have “enough” parking. Well, not exactly. Ironically, amidst declarations as recently as this week that “on-street parking along Winslow Way is vital to the economic viability of downtown Bainbridge Island,” 12 key on-street parking spaces have been slated for removal in the Streetscape plan. After years of decrying the (not universally accepted) dearth of downtown parking spaces, the City had already responded to it’s own call to action by reducing by half the number of required on-site parking spaces and now will shift 12 centrally located on-street spaces westward toward Grow. Because the spaces are still along Winslow Way, the result is generously described as resulting in “no net loss.”
Why this latest loss of parking? Putting aside any connection with the desire of certain downtown property owners to convince us that we need a $12 million dollar parking garage off Madrone, it appears to be the result of the City’s hunger for wider sidewalks and other “amenities”.
At some point it was decided that we must have wider sidewalks (9 feet) at all costs, and so, as moving buildings back is not an option, we are left with a narrower street. A narrower street means no more deliveries in the middle of the road, and that means creating delivery zones for trucks ranging up to and beyond 50 ft in length in our tiny downtown shopping district.
The current proposal is to permanently dedicate 2 extra-large spaces for UPS style deliveries, and for small business owners to ask that large truck deliveries only occur in the morning (Note to Mom and Pop: good luck telling a huge distributor to re-schedule it’s route). And when the big trucks do deliver, up to three at a time will park by each straddling 5-8 standard diagonal parking spaces in designated temporary loading zones on Winslow Way.
Thus, between dedicated loading zones, two new accessible spaces and other unspecified “design elements and code requirements... consistent with the goals and desires of Winslow Tomorrow”, 12 spaces will be lost between Ericksen and Madison.
Visions of Carmel Dance in Their Heads
Our city planners and consultants have oft described the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape plan as “trying to put 50 pounds worth of stuff into a 10-pound bag”. They proudly embrace this challenge of trying to fit a big city’s worth of “amenities” into a small-town shopping district. Perhaps we would do better to heed the warning inherent in that concept. Is putting 50 pounds worth of something into a 10-pound bag a wise proposition? Is it not by definition unrealistic and awkward? Might we be happy with our 10 pounds of “stuff”. Even if we would like all the bells and whistles proposed, do we want to pay for them?
The City is proposing to pay for the project with Councilmanic Bonds. This is debt that the City may authorize without a vote from the general public – some describe it as the City’s credit card. Like a credit card, reserve Councilmanic Bond capacity serves as an invaluable emergency funding source and helps maintain a good bond rating. As such, it is considered prudent to leave a fairly substantial portion of that capacity in reserve. A City’s Councilmanic Bond debt is limited by statute to 1.5% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, in our case that is approximately $84 million. To date we have used approximately $21 million of that capacity. Assuming we aim to leave a modest 35% in reserve, using $21 million for the Streetscape would leave just $13 million for all other proposed or desired projects. While some jurisdictions look to Councilmanic bonds for exceptional circumstances and essential capital projects, it seems that our City is looking to them increasing as just another tool for financing everything from capital projects to open space to Winslow Tomorrow soft costs.
Stickin’ it to the (Common) Man
So how will those bonds be repaid? The City points to possible grant money, the largest by far being a State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grant which, according to the Streetscape consultants, is available for up to $5 million. Just two small problems: (a) CERB grants are intended to provide “funding assistance to economically challenged communities for public facilities to foster the creation and/or retention of jobs by industry, and (b) grants for water, sewer and/or roads appear to have ranged between $100,000 and $500,000 from 1999-2006 – and generally toward the lower end of that spectrum. It appears quite unlikely that the proposed grants will make a meaningful dent in the $21 million debt.
Surprisingly, there is no plan to create a Local Improvement District (LID) to recover costs from Winslow Way property owners. LID’s are imposed on properties directly benefiting from an improvement – including street paving, streetlight installation, sewer installation and the undergrounding of overhead utility wires. For some reason, the properties fronting Winslow Way will not be paying their proportional share of the project costs.
Here’s where the rest of us come in. Depending upon how much outside funding can be found, every Island household not on City water and sewer could be assessed as much as $8.30 per month for 20 years, or nearly $2,000. Those unfortunate enough to be on City water and sewer could face an increase in their utility bills of up to $39.20 per month for twenty years (that’s a total of more than $9,000 per household).
The questions the community needs to be asking now, and which deserve honest answers, are how much of what is being proposed is truly essential and are the consultants and administration really exploring the least costly alternatives? It doesn’t take an expert to see that Winslow Way is not crying out for “economic revitalization”, and given the City’s current financial situation and other pressing community needs what is currently being proposed is not a realistic option. We need a simple public works directed sewer project, not a state of the art urban design project, and we should expect those most directly benefiting from the project to pay their proportional share.
For the complete recommendations presented to Council for discussion tomorrow night, go here.
For a look at who sits on the Streetscape Advisory Committee, including several Winslow Way property owners, go here.
For a brief discussion of the City’s financial situation, check out Althea Paulson’s new blog and her links to several useful documents including the infamous BRG Memo
And to think most of us thought we had a pretty good thing going on down there. Apparently, it’s in truly dire straights, because an internationally renowned consulting firm has been hired to manage it’s “redevelopment” while the City administration is angling for grant money aimed at revitalizing “economically challenged communities”.
Heery International was retained, to the tune of $1 million, not only to help the City create a shiny new main street, but also to convince the public of a pressing need to borrow $21 million dollars to rip out the entire street and risk bankrupting our local merchants. We’re not talking about broken pipes here. We’re talking about replacing every single element of the street. And we’re talking about each and every one of us paying for it, though some will pay much more than others and it won’t be the Winslow Way property owners.
The Parking Space Pyramid Scheme
At least we’ll finally have “enough” parking. Well, not exactly. Ironically, amidst declarations as recently as this week that “on-street parking along Winslow Way is vital to the economic viability of downtown Bainbridge Island,” 12 key on-street parking spaces have been slated for removal in the Streetscape plan. After years of decrying the (not universally accepted) dearth of downtown parking spaces, the City had already responded to it’s own call to action by reducing by half the number of required on-site parking spaces and now will shift 12 centrally located on-street spaces westward toward Grow. Because the spaces are still along Winslow Way, the result is generously described as resulting in “no net loss.”
Why this latest loss of parking? Putting aside any connection with the desire of certain downtown property owners to convince us that we need a $12 million dollar parking garage off Madrone, it appears to be the result of the City’s hunger for wider sidewalks and other “amenities”.
At some point it was decided that we must have wider sidewalks (9 feet) at all costs, and so, as moving buildings back is not an option, we are left with a narrower street. A narrower street means no more deliveries in the middle of the road, and that means creating delivery zones for trucks ranging up to and beyond 50 ft in length in our tiny downtown shopping district.
The current proposal is to permanently dedicate 2 extra-large spaces for UPS style deliveries, and for small business owners to ask that large truck deliveries only occur in the morning (Note to Mom and Pop: good luck telling a huge distributor to re-schedule it’s route). And when the big trucks do deliver, up to three at a time will park by each straddling 5-8 standard diagonal parking spaces in designated temporary loading zones on Winslow Way.
Thus, between dedicated loading zones, two new accessible spaces and other unspecified “design elements and code requirements... consistent with the goals and desires of Winslow Tomorrow”, 12 spaces will be lost between Ericksen and Madison.
Visions of Carmel Dance in Their Heads
Our city planners and consultants have oft described the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape plan as “trying to put 50 pounds worth of stuff into a 10-pound bag”. They proudly embrace this challenge of trying to fit a big city’s worth of “amenities” into a small-town shopping district. Perhaps we would do better to heed the warning inherent in that concept. Is putting 50 pounds worth of something into a 10-pound bag a wise proposition? Is it not by definition unrealistic and awkward? Might we be happy with our 10 pounds of “stuff”. Even if we would like all the bells and whistles proposed, do we want to pay for them?
The City is proposing to pay for the project with Councilmanic Bonds. This is debt that the City may authorize without a vote from the general public – some describe it as the City’s credit card. Like a credit card, reserve Councilmanic Bond capacity serves as an invaluable emergency funding source and helps maintain a good bond rating. As such, it is considered prudent to leave a fairly substantial portion of that capacity in reserve. A City’s Councilmanic Bond debt is limited by statute to 1.5% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, in our case that is approximately $84 million. To date we have used approximately $21 million of that capacity. Assuming we aim to leave a modest 35% in reserve, using $21 million for the Streetscape would leave just $13 million for all other proposed or desired projects. While some jurisdictions look to Councilmanic bonds for exceptional circumstances and essential capital projects, it seems that our City is looking to them increasing as just another tool for financing everything from capital projects to open space to Winslow Tomorrow soft costs.
Stickin’ it to the (Common) Man
So how will those bonds be repaid? The City points to possible grant money, the largest by far being a State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grant which, according to the Streetscape consultants, is available for up to $5 million. Just two small problems: (a) CERB grants are intended to provide “funding assistance to economically challenged communities for public facilities to foster the creation and/or retention of jobs by industry, and (b) grants for water, sewer and/or roads appear to have ranged between $100,000 and $500,000 from 1999-2006 – and generally toward the lower end of that spectrum. It appears quite unlikely that the proposed grants will make a meaningful dent in the $21 million debt.
Surprisingly, there is no plan to create a Local Improvement District (LID) to recover costs from Winslow Way property owners. LID’s are imposed on properties directly benefiting from an improvement – including street paving, streetlight installation, sewer installation and the undergrounding of overhead utility wires. For some reason, the properties fronting Winslow Way will not be paying their proportional share of the project costs.
Here’s where the rest of us come in. Depending upon how much outside funding can be found, every Island household not on City water and sewer could be assessed as much as $8.30 per month for 20 years, or nearly $2,000. Those unfortunate enough to be on City water and sewer could face an increase in their utility bills of up to $39.20 per month for twenty years (that’s a total of more than $9,000 per household).
The questions the community needs to be asking now, and which deserve honest answers, are how much of what is being proposed is truly essential and are the consultants and administration really exploring the least costly alternatives? It doesn’t take an expert to see that Winslow Way is not crying out for “economic revitalization”, and given the City’s current financial situation and other pressing community needs what is currently being proposed is not a realistic option. We need a simple public works directed sewer project, not a state of the art urban design project, and we should expect those most directly benefiting from the project to pay their proportional share.
For the complete recommendations presented to Council for discussion tomorrow night, go here.
For a look at who sits on the Streetscape Advisory Committee, including several Winslow Way property owners, go here.
For a brief discussion of the City’s financial situation, check out Althea Paulson’s new blog and her links to several useful documents including the infamous BRG Memo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
