The Fort Collins Connection

Rumblings in the community about an increasingly interesting relationship between the City of Bainbridge Island and the City of Fort Collins, CO have reached an audible pitch following recent developments at City Hall.

As Tristan “the press is back in town” Baurick noted in the Bainbridge Islander last week (and more pointedly on the Islander's blog), two of the five finalists in the City’s search for a new City Administrator have served previously as City Manager for Fort Collins. An interesting coincidence as Fort Collins is a relatively small town not exactly a stone’s throw away. But what really makes the coincidence worth noting is that these are just two of an increasing number of links between the two cities.

The most prominent connection to Fort Collins thus far has been, of course, our current Planning Director Greg Byrne. Byrne served as Director of Planning in Fort Collins prior to taking his current position at the City of Bainbridge Island last year. During his tenure at Fort Collins, Director Byrne helped to craft City Plan, a Winslow Tomorrow-esque comprehensive plan to guide city planning through 2025. Among the consultants participating in the creation the plan was the Fort Collins office of EDAW, former and current employer of ex-Winslow Tomorrow project manager Sandy Fischer. Not to say that Fischer was involved in the Fort Collins plan. At that time, Ms. Fischer was the owner of an architecture firm in Montana where she ultimately played a major role in the redevelopment of downtown Billings, including a prominent streetscape project paid for largely by the benefiting private property owners and grant money (imagine that). She was hired by the Seattle office of EDAW in 2002.

The real “hmmm” moment came last week with the hiring of Clarion Associates for the overhaul of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. Those who watched the February 13th Council meeting may recall planning director Greg Byrne explaining the fair and thorough process used to evaluate the candidates for the $200,000 contract that resulted in the unanimous decision to recommend Clarion. A quick Internet search finds that Clarion Consultants, a national firm, has an office in Fort Collins. A few more clicks of the mouse and we find that not only has Director Byrne worked closely with Clarion on a number of occasions over at least the last 10 years, including the creation of City Plan, but, as Clarion boasts on it’s website, it was also hired to draft “an innovative new zoning code that … guided implementation of City Plan”.

We could do worse when it comes to intriguing relationships – apparently Fort Collins was Money magazine’s number one best place to live in 2006. Although, if we’re going to draw heavily (solely?) on the talent of one particular geographical location, it could be argued that a coastal or island locale might be a more suitable training ground than one located in the land locked high desert.

So what exactly is the significance of these connections to Fort Collins, CO? Who knows. Perhaps it’s evidence of an elaborate conspiracy related to the redevelopment of Winslow, or perhaps it’s just another case of I-know-a-guy hiring practices. Either way it’s probably worth keeping our eyes out for more visitors from “the FC”.

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

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)

How We Do Things Here

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)

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.

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.

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.

When Old is New and New is Old

As we struggle to evaluate what is going on in City Hall today it is useful to look at where the City has been and what roles the various players have played throughout the City’s brief history. The Bainbridge Review, in its endorsement of John Waldo for City council, extols the fact that Waldo’s list of supporters includes two former Councilpersons "whose very names recall a time when councils forged consensus and got things done”. In the following piece, written in response to former Council Member Norm Wooldridge’s recent attack on incumbent candidate Bill Knobloch, former Councilperson Debbie Vann gives her perspective on how things “got done” in the “good old days”.

Republished with permission of the author.


It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Wooldridge has now chosen to attack Bill Knobloch by twisting what really happened during the first year he was on the Council. I feel that the record needs to be set straight. It is true that during Bill’s first year on Council, things were being shaken up and people who were in charge, the previous Mayor and some previous Council members, had strong negative reactions. The “Good ole’ boy” machine was being challenged and they didn’t like it. Mr. Waldo, then reporter for the Bainbridge Island Review newspaper, actively supported them.

At that time, the City administration was in bad shape. The City had never passed a state audit and in fact, the auditor told us that they couldn’t even begin to audit the books, they were such a mess. The Planning Department was completely dysfunctional due to poor leadership. Everyone, the development community and the environmental community, had been calling for a change for several years. Some bills to be invoiced through the Planning Department had not been sent out for two years, totaling over $250,000 of potential city income.

Contracts were awarded with no Council oversight to “friends of the City”, a direct quote from the then City Administrator. There was no citizen input into the budget and in fact, Council had one meeting to review and rubber stamp the Mayor’s budget. The City Administrator was at war with the finance director and they had not spoken to each other for two years.

The Council itself rarely allowed any citizen involvement in the legislative process. Council members didn’t even have their own email addresses. Council members sat on the boards of non-profits and still voted for City funding for them, a clear ethical violation. They were stalled over public works projects like getting sidewalks and bike lanes on Ericksen and the South End Sewer. As new Councilmembers, we were told by Mr. Wooldridge that we should have no input into legislation until we had been there for a year. He reacted strongly to our changes that increased citizen involvement and increased Council involvement in the budget process.

It was unfortunate that the newly elected Mayor, Darlene Kordonowy, was getting poor advice from those in charge of the City, the previous Mayor and long-term Council members like Mr. Wooldridge. She was encouraged to oppose attempts from Bill, Debbie Vancil and myself when we began to expose the mess in City Hall. However, the Mayor was also very concerned over the failed audits and began to see for herself the serious problems within the City. In her second year and with our strong support, she began to clean house and we got a new City Administrator, Planning Director, Finance Director, and Telecommunications Director.

The Mayor and Council began to work collaboratively with each other. We established a system where the Directors and Council agreed on work loads and together set up a list of legislative priorities for the year. We put in place a new Council manual that detailed Council and Administrative responsibilities.

Those were tumultuous times, but out of that came a City that now passes the state audits with accolades from the auditors, a more efficient Planning Department and City Administration. During Bill’s first three years on Council numerous public works projects were completed, the public became actively involved with legislative issues and some great legislation was passed. One moment stands out for me. At the end of our first year, Bill brought in several large stacks of paper that held all of the legislation we had passed and plopped them down on the podium. We really got things done.

Today, Bill is not the problem with the City Council and the Mayor and in fact, he works quite well with the Mayor and staff. The people responsible, Council members Llewellyn, Scales and Tooloee, are the very people that were supported by the “Good ole’ boys”, including Mr. Wooldridge. Now, they want to put yet another one of their group on Council, John Waldo. I have seen enough of their impact on the City to know that the last thing we need on City Council is yet another voice for dissent, disruption, and poorly planned and thought out legislation.