Hats for Sale

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

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

One Stop Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Way Forward

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

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

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

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

Time is of the Essence

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

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


___________________________________________________________

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


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

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

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

To read more go here.



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

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

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

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

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

To read more go here.

Dismantling a Community to Build a City

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

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

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


Transit Villages and Core Extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Going Backward to go Forward

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

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

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

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


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

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

(excerpted from the City's website)

Downtown Conspiracy 101

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

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

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


The Secret of the Hidden LID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Case of the Missing Fire Flow

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

As Easy as ... One, Two, Three

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

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


Rule #1: Citizens Shall be Seen and Not Heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ouch.


Rule #2 The Mayor Shall get her Way

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


Rule #3 Council Shall Bear all Blame

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

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

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

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


Time to Break the Rules

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

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

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

Committees, Commissions & Boards, Oh My!

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


The Inside Scoop

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

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

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

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

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


So Many Familiar Faces

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

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

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

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


Who you gonna call?

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

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


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

Big Concrete for Little Winslow

What has 1,000 parking spaces, is one and a half football fields long and runs from Madrone to Ericksen? How about a mega- parking garage proposed for the heart of Winslow. If anyone had any doubts left about the vision for our City shared by a small group of property owners, urban planners, realtors and architects, surely this will be the nail in the coffin of that doubt.





The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.

With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?


For Love of Parking

According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.

Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.

Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?


Promises, Promises

In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.

Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.


B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)

Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)

As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.

Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.


Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge

On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.

But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.


For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.

To read the entire feasibility study go here.

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