Streetscape Switch and Bait

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


Robin Hood in Reverse

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


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


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


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


All Signs Point to Winslow Tomorrow

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


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


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


Whose Car is it Anyway?

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


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


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


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


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



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

Undoing the People’s Work

. .

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

Our Tax Dollars at Work

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

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

Representing the Few

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

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

Silencing the Many

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

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

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

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

The Power of Information

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

It’s All in the Timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s All in the Translation

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

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

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

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

It’s All in the Fine Print

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

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

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

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

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

Gag Orders, Stonewalling and Empty Coffers

Three months into 2008 and despite undercurrents of regime change and improprieties exposed, City Hall politics are looking disturbingly familiar. While it is clear that a floating majority of this Council is making a valiant, and perhaps unprecedented, effort to assert itself, insisting on full disclosure from staff showing both fiscal responsibility and community support before allocating funds, it’s still business as usual for other players at City Hall as the Administration continues to use its information monopoly to keep Council in the dark.

City Hall insiders who have been closely following COBI finances assert that the City is strapped for cash and is even delinquent with respect to some of its obligations. There’s enough substance behind these rumors to cause a majority of Councilors to make clear that they will not proceed with major funding decisions until they’ve been fully informed by staff about the status of current City finances. Therein lies the rub. In order for Council to fully understand the City’s current financial status, Staff must provide Council with comprehensive records. Yet Council requests have been apparently met with stonewalling and gag orders. Meanwhile, there has been mounting evidence of a financial crisis, including an admission by Finance Director Konkel that on December 31st the City had no cash on hand, and the fact that the City has not been current with two of its most high profile community support obligations – Bainbridge Island Arts and Humanities Council and BITV. This despite the Mayor making public reassurances of financial solvency and contending publicly at the March 24th City Council meeting that a gag order was never imposed on Staff prohibiting communication with Council members. Meanwhile her department heads and Staff are less than forthcoming with the records that might, or might not, substantiate her claims.

The revelation of a zero cash balance at the close of 2007 prompted a respected local accounting expert and Council watcher to e-mail the following series of questions and observations to Council in March:

1. What happened to the 2nd half of 2007 property tax receipts of some $3,000,000, most of which was received during the last four months of 2007?

2. The year-end Councilmanic bond of several million dollars closed on December 20th or so. Does this mean that all the cash went out the door by December 31st?

3. This kind of cash situation doesn't suddenly come as a surprise when you happen to look at the City's checkbooks in late December. What did the Mayor, Elray, et al know, and when did they know it - especially in light of the November to January budget and Capital Facilities Plan debates?

4. If indeed the City's poor cash position was known by the Mayor, Mary Jo, Elray, etc. in late 2007, it makes the Amba Gale retreat even worse. Something about the Captain and key crewmembers rearranging the deck chairs on the stern, while the ship is steaming straight towards an iceberg.

5. It is clearly time for (a) a near total stand down on capital projects and new hiring, and (b) an audit by a CPA firm selected by the Council.

These rumblings of an impending financial crisis for our City make us wonder about the timing of a recent announcement by the City of a crackdown on unlicensed Island businesses involving a hefty $500 per day fine. This move is particularly ironic at a time when the Administration has been sharply criticized for knowingly allowing its Chief City Engineer to remain unlicensed for two years.

At the March 24th City Council Meeting, Council person Debbie Vancil laid out a series of questions she wants answered by the April 2nd Special City Council Meeting on City Finances and the Winslow Way Streetscape. How much cash does the City have on hand today? Are revenue projections on target? Are expenses exceeding revenue? Without credible answers to these questions, it appears that Council may finally pull the plug on the Administration's spending spree.

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

The Choice is Clear

The Bainbridge Resource Group (BRG) distributed the first in a series of papers today on the Council-Manager and Strong Mayor forms of government. A petition is currently circulating in the community to put the question on the ballot later this year. Published with permission.

Council-Manager or Strong Mayor?

The Choice is Clear

Learn the Facts about Council-Manager Government

Everyone wants strong political leadership – neighborhoods, civic leaders, and the business community included. And today’s complex communities cannot survive without the guidance of effective mayors who provide a sense of direction and contribute to the smooth functioning of a local government.

But communities also need thoughtful, dedicated council members, who work with the mayor to establish appropriate policy, and competent, professional managers to carry out those policies. None of the three are mutually exclusive; they can and do work together today in many of the country’s successful council-manager communities.

Today council-manager government is the fastest growing form of government in the U.S; it frees up the elected body to establish policy, which is carried out by an appointed manager and an administrative staff. The manager is accountable to the entire council for the satisfactory implementation of the council policy and the day-to-day administration of municipal affairs.

There are compelling reasons why many of the nation’s most successful cities and towns have adopted council-manager government rather than “strong-mayor” form. Council-Manager government encourages neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing and contracting decisions.

People who take the time to learn the facts about council-manager government are likely to join the ranks of those who favor this popular form. Consider the following when deciding which form of government is best for your community:

Neighborhoods Strengthen Their Voice

The council-manager form encourages open communication between citizens and their government. Under this form, each member of the governing body has an equal voice in policy development and administrative oversight. This gives neighborhoods and diverse groups a greater opportunity to influence policy.

Under the “strong-mayor” form, political power is concentrated in the mayor, which means that other members of the elected body relinquish at least some of their policy-making power and influence. This loss of decision-making power among council members can have a chilling effect on the voices of neighborhoods and city residents.

The Power of Special Interests is Diffused

Under the council-manager form of government, involvement of the entire elected body ensures a more balanced approach to community decision making, so that all interests can be expressed and heard – not just those that are well-funded or well-connected. Under the “strong-mayor” form, however it is easier for special interests to use money and political power to influence a single elected official, rather than having to secure a majority of the city council’s support for their agenda.

Merit-Based Decision Making vs. Partisan Politics

Under council-manager government, qualifications and performance-and not skillful navigation of the political election process-are the criteria the elected body uses to select a professional manager. The professional manager, in turn, uses his or her education, experience, and training to select department heads and other key managers to oversee the efficient delivery of services. In this way, council-manager government maintains critical checks and balances to ensure accountability at city hall.

Functioning much like a business organization’s chief executive officer, the appointed professional manager administers the daily operations of the community. Through a professional staff, the manager ensures the effective provision of services and enforces the policies adopted by the elected body. He or she, in turn, uses merit as the leading criterion for making all hiring and personnel decisions.

Appointed local government managers have no guaranteed term of office or tenure. They can be dismissed by the council at any time, for any reason. As a result, they constantly must respond to citizens and be dedicated to the highest ideals of honesty, integrity and excellence in the management and delivery of public services.

Under the “strong mayor” form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the mayor, who often lacks the appropriate training, education and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services. Also, under the “strong mayor” form, the temptation is strong to make decisions regarding hiring and firing of key department head positions-such as police chief, public works director and finance director-based on the applicant’s political support rather than his or her professional qualifications.

Many Successful Cities Use Council-Manager Government

Council-Manager government works! It balances diverse interests, responds quickly to challenges, and brings the community together to resolve even the toughest issues.

Currently, more than 98 million Americans live in council-manager communities, and the system continues to flourish. This form of government is used by thousands of small, medium and large jurisdictions, including Boulder, San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose and Phoenix. In Washington it includes, for example: Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Centralia, Ellensburg, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Port Townsend, and Richland.

History Argues for the Council-Manager Form of Government

Nearly 100 years old, the council-manager form of government has proven it adaptability; today it is the most popular choice of structure among U.S. communities with populations of 2,500 or greater. Since 1988 the percentage of U.S. cities under council-manager has increased from 35% to 49% and the percentage of U.S. cities under mayor-council has decreased from 55% to 43.5%. During this time the number of cities has increased by 8%.

Council-Manager government, however, was not always an option. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, there was widespread corruption, graft and nepotism among U.S. cities. The stories of New York’s Tammany Hall and Kansas City’s Pendergrast machine are only two of the legendary stories of the misuse of local government power during this time.

By the early 20^th century, reformers were looking for ways to return control of municipal government to citizens. Those reformers advocated the council-manager structure of government to eliminate corruption found in many cities. With its emphasis on professional training and accountability, the council-manager form of government was adopted by a number of cities in the 1920s and 1930s.

It took years to diffuse the power entrenched in turn-of-the-century city political machines and special interests. Today, however, citizens throughout the U.S. have resumed control by adopting or retaining council-manager government in their community and enjoying representative democracy at its best.

Adapted from: California City Management Foundation, originally published in 1998.

New data included from Municipal Yearbook of the International Council Manager Association. ICMA.org. And from Municipal Research Services Center at MRSC.org.

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

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)