Get serious, City Hall

Last week the City finally admitted that Mayor Darlene Kordonowy’s administration has spent us into a hole over the last two years and, because of the current economic downturn, we’re not going to be able to crawl out any time soon. 

You’d think that a responsible administration would be diligently addressing the money problem with a real plan for cutbacks and increased efficiency. You’d think that bloated plans for Winslow Way redevelopment would be either shelved or scaled back to an austere and efficient project limited to the improvements necessary to meet health and safety standards.

You’d think. But you’d be wrong.

I didn’t have a strong opinion, pro or con, when this project was called Winslow Tomorrow or when it became the re-branded “Streetscape.” I wasn’t all that worried about building height, though the suggestion by Rod Stevens and others to put taller buildings behind Winslow Way seems a sensible way of retaining character while increasing density.

But now that we’re out of money for things I do care about—affordable housing, non-motorized projects, a senior community center—I’ve formed an opinion. This never-ending project is a debacle. It’s a poster child for misguided government.

To take just one aspect of this mess, consider the proposed contract with Heery International to finish up the Winslow Way reconstruction design (not just the utilities project, but the other amenities too). That contract, which was the subject of sharp disagreement at the last City Council meeting, is phase 2 of the design contract with Heery and would obligate the City to pay $1.3 million to complete the design. That’s on top of the almost $1 million we paid last year—when the City already knew it was in financial trouble–for Heery to deliver 30% of the design work. 

That’s right. In an economic slowdown, our City is going to spend over $2 million in design and engineering fees for a $11.3 million utilities project on Winslow Way before a single shovel of dirt is turned.

For the sake of discussion, let’s acknowledge there might be good reasons to keep going. Let’s concede that there’s a legitimate public safety reason to replace the pipes under Winslow Way so there’ll be enough water pressure to fight a fire if one ever breaks out.  Let’s buy the argument that we’ve come so far on design we might as well finish the plans we can’t afford to use–in case we find some money in the next five or so years. In other words, let’s agree with the adminstration and the four City Councilors–Barry Peters, Kjell Stoknes, Chris Snow and Hilary Franz–who, as of the last Council meeting, continued to support this project. While we’re at it, though, let’s admit that the Winslow Way project has become an expensive controversy that is dividing this community and squandering good will among City staffers, electeds and the public.

Under these circumstances, wouldn’t you think that responsible City Hallers who are determined to do the project would try to shore up trust and community opinion by trimming the proposed contract, weeding out unnecessary “public outreach” items (aka promo efforts), doing in-house as much of the design and preparation work as possible, and developing a serious plan on how to pay for it before signing on the dotted line?

You’d think so, but you’d be wrong again.

The Heery contract on this week’s Council agenda is just as expensive as it was two weeks ago. There was no effort to trim anything. And no one has a plan with real numbers about how to complete the stripped down $11.3 million utilities project currently under discussion (not to mention the fancier streetscape plan we’re going to pay for in this 2nd phase of the Heery contract. Just in case.) 

I’m not going to second-guess the many items in the proposed contract that pays Heery tens of thousands of dollars to “assist the City in working” on construction bid documents, or to “contract and coordinate” with subcontractors.

But it does seem out of line to expect the public to pay $100,000 for promotional efforts like a two-day planning charette, four public workshops (replete with “displays and handouts”), a public open house (with more displays and handouts), assisting the City with monthly downtown association meetings (because, apparently, City staff needs $6200 in assistance to bring the coffee). And $12,000 to maintain the project’s website (can I have a show of hands for all those who have found any useful information on that website? How many of you even know how to get to it?)

At the last Council meeting, when the four Council members authorized staff to prepare the Heery contract, they also approved a list of eight conditions submitted by Councilor Hilary Franz, including a requirement that the City show it has the financial capacity to complete the project, and  that it complete a utility rate study to assure that it has enough revenue for the project (all of the conditions are listed on the 10th page of the Council agenda item, here). 

None of the eight conditions will be met before the City Council has to vote on the contract, which is on Wednesday’s City Council agenda. The conditions are not a legally binding part of the  contract–they’re included in the Council agenda packet but are not identified as an exhibit or otherwise incorporated into contract. 

Even if they were, they’d be unenforceable because they’re so vague and subjective. Take, for instance, Condition #4: “The City seriously works with the downtown property owners to develop a LID/TID/or BpID, or obtain other contributions for elements of the project.” 

So what happens if the City doesn’t “seriously” work with property owners? (And at this point, the City’s seriousness is, well, seriously in question). Can the City bail out of the contract and stop paying Heery?

Of course not.  Heery has nothing to do with the policy matters and governmental activities set out in those conditions. Once the contract is signed, Heery must be paid for its work unless the City exercises its 30-day termination clause. What are the odds the City will choose to terminate this contract once the project team is on the job? 

This City is in a financial mess and the Mayor has been unforgivably late in owning up to it. Still, she continues to push her pet project—her “brand new car” as she called it in last week’s Finance Committee meeting. Four of our seven City Councilors have stood behind her so far.

That we’re headed toward a sinkhole of a project we’re not sure how to pay for seems clear. What’s not clear is the reason for the hurry to take another pricey step before we’ve gotten a grip on our financial woes, taken stock of the island’s numerous pressing and overdue infrastructure projects before we blow the bank on just one, and figured out how much and what we can legally and politically pay for.

Even if our government isn’t serious about dealing with these financial realities, taxpayers are. At Wednesday night’s Council meeting, we’ll probably be hearing from a lot of them.

By the way, islander Debbie Lester makes a good point in a letter to the Kitsap Sun, that as we hash through these disagreements about City priorities, we would do well to keep in mind that the people who do the work on these projects are our neighbors. The project manager from Heery, for instance, is Michael Romero, who lives on the island. My comments above are directed to our electeds. I have no beef with the people who are doing the work.