I received this email, a public document, from several sources over the weekend. It is a statement from Council member Barry Peters, Finance Committee Chair, to a member of an arts organization, concerning the City budget crisis and the near-certainty that the City will cease funding community organizations at the end of April. (I’ve made no changes to the document, other than to delete names of the citizens mentioned in the email).
Thank you for calling me on Friday to discuss city finances and the challenges we face during this crisis year as we try to figure out what portion of the nearly $900,000 of 2009 budgeted community organization contracts the City can afford.
I want to confirm in writing — and share with my Council colleagues — the gist of the personal opinions I expressed to you during our hour’s conversation. I very much appreciated your recognition of the hard financial realities that the City is up against during this financial crisis year.
Our 2009 financial crisis is in the tax-supported portion of the City budget that funds non-utility functions and general-purpose services … including the community organization contracts.
Without a magic crystal ball, none of us knows exactly how large the City’s 2009 financial gap in its tax-supported funds will prove to be. On Wednesday, the Council has set aside 90 minutes for a workshop for the purpose of coming to a consensus (perhaps a vote) on what we decide to assume the dollar amount of that Phase 2 financial gap will be.
That “gap” consists of the sum of two parts: (1) How much more end-of-2009 cash balance do we feel we need than the $1.0 million of year-end cash that our cash flow model now forecasts. Plus (2) How much lower might our tax-supported revenues turn out to be in 2009 than the “Forecast Revenues” which are currently assumed in our cash flow model (an assumption that we’ve already reduced by about $2 million below the 2009 budgeted revenue assumptions).
On January 28th, Mark Dombroski did a great job helping us identify a Phase 1 gap, and we immediately took action to close it. That night, all 7 of us unanimously voted to endorse Mark’s Phase 1 recommendations that we:
As of January 28th, Mark’s projections showed that the actions (i) and (ii) above were estimated to produce a year-end 2009 tax-supported fund balance of $2 million. That would be $800,000 higher than our 2008 closing balance, and would come close to covering the end-of-2009 $2.4 million of cash reserve targets that our existing Council policies seek to fund (including, for example, an Emergency Rainy Day Fund of about $1 million).
IDENTIFYING THE PHASE 2 GAP
Since January 28th, however, as Mark works to improve the City’s first cash flow forecasting and management tool, we have new information on an emerging Phase 2 gap that I believe is well into seven figures — over and above our $2.3 million of January 28th expense cuts. Here’s information I consider relevant for estimating the size of the Phase 2 gap:
1. More than $800,000 of expenses incurred in 2008 have shown up in 2009 cash outflows identified in recent weeks. The magnitude of those carried-over 2008 expenses have unexpectedly reduced our current cash balances to the point where we’ve needed a $600,000 interfund loan from our Water Utility Fund to our General Fund to enable payables to continue to be paid as they come due.
2. Monthly actual revenues in January were unfortunately about $94,000 (7%) lower than expected in Mark’s initial cash flow estimate. To the good, however, January’s monthly actual 2009 expenses were $400,000 lower than expected (before taking account of a like amount of carried-over 2008 expenses). The low level of January 2009 expenses shows that cost controls are apparently working, including Mark’s January executive order deferring the start of any new nonessential contractual commitments until at least May, and the decision to leave many vacancies unfilled, in addition to the 6 pending layoffs.
3. Subsequent to 1/28, Mark has fine-tuned his estimates of Forecast Revenues for the year, and that resulted in his further $400k reduction in his Forecast Revenue assumptions for 2009, to make them even more conservative.
4. The combination of items “1” to “3” above, led Mark to project at last Tuesday’s FPC meeting that the end-of-year tax-supported cash balance, if revenues come in as he forecasts, would be only about $1 million at the end of year (instead of the $2+ million that his cash model projected on January 28th). So, that alone indicates a gap of $1.4m between that projected end-of-year balance of $1m versus the $2.4 million of year-end reserves that our standing policies call for (and which I consider a bare minimum for prudence).
5. At our 3/3 FPC meeting, Mark (on page 31-32 of the packet) showed us his new worst-case set of estimates of 70 line items of tax-supported fund revenue sources for 2009. In total, those 70 worst-case estimates (collectively called “Baseline Revenues”) are about $3.4 million lower (for the combination of operating and capital, recurring and one-time, revenues) than his conservative set of “Forecast Revenues” in his 3/3 cash forecast for 2009. In my opinion, it’s likely that some or many individual revenue items (like sales tax and REET) may come in at a level near or at the worst-case Baseline instead of the Forecast level. But I believe it’s unlikely that all 70 line items will come in uniformly at the worst case level. So, I think that a further revenue shortfall amounting to the full $3.4 million is unlikely. That $3.4 million would be over and above the $1.8 million revenue shortfall that we already agreed on January 28th to assume, and over and above the additional $400k revenue shortfall embodied in Mark’s revised 3/3 Forecast Revenue estimates.
So, depending on how pessimistic one’s crystal ball may be (i.e. whether you foresee 2009 revenues closer to Mark’s worst-case Baseline or Mark’s projected “Forecast Revenues”), the overall Phase 2 gap (the sum of items “4” and “5” above) might be $1.4 million to $4.8 million.
Bear in mind, however, that the $1.4 to $4.8m Phase 2 gap is over and above the $2.2 million revenue shortfall already taken into account in the 1/28 and 3/3 cash forecast. So, whatever gap we identify on Wednesday will require expense reductions IN ADDITION TO the $2.3 million in 2009 expense reductions (with 6 layoffs) that we already unanimously endorsed on January 28th.
So, the plan is for Council, first, to reach consensus (or vote) on a Phase 2 gap target on Wednesday. Then, the following Wednesday (3/18), we’ll spend all day trying to find 2009 expense reductions to close our assumed 2009 Phase 2 gap in our tax-supported funds.
HOW TO REDUCE EXPENSES TO CLOSE THE PHASE 2 GAP
In my opinion, we can’t responsibly close the Phase 2 gap solely through layoffs. I believe the community organization contracts will have to be very substantially reduced, along with cutbacks in other non-personnel items. Why? Given that any such Phase 2 reduced expenses would only occur during the last two-thirds (8 months) of the year, we would need roughly 15 layoffs for every million dollars of gap. That’s because the average City Hall employee’s salary plus benefits plus payroll taxes plus related expenses is about $100k per year, or about $67k for 8 months).
We’re starting with about 135 current FTEs on the payroll at this time (down from 152 in Dec 2007). Of these 135, Mark’s summary shows:
That leaves only 73 FTEs as a potential pool for layoffs.
For illustration purposes only, if Council were to decide that the gap is, say, $2.5 million, it would require 38 layoffs (15 per million dollars) if the gap were to be met solely by layoffs — without help from reductions of community organization contracts and other types of expenses. I personally don’t believe it would be responsible to reduce 73 FTEs by a number anywhere close to 38 FTE layoffs. That would be a reduction of 55 FTEs — more than one-third of the city workforce — since December 2007. That would be a devastating loss of skills, experience and know-how. That many layoffs, in my opinion, would not only eliminate discretionary city services; they’d also cut into various legally-mandated and policy-prescribed services and activities. Even COBI’s most popular programs, like water quantity and quality monitoring, would almost certainly be decimated (especially since the Engineering Technician who supports that program has the least seniority among employees in that title, and therefore is especially at risk for layoff under the terms of our bargaining agreements).
So as I said on the phone, I believe that the Council needs to achieve expense reductions through a combination of approaches — both layoffs and other large categories of City expenditures, including, very sadly, the community organization contracts, such as those for the arts and cultural element.
In my opinion (one voice in 7), I believe that, in this crisis year, the Council should give 30 days notice at the end of March, that, effective as of the end of April, the contracts can only provide four months worth of money, rather than 12 months worth — a 2/3rds reduction. It is my sincere hope that our community will privately support the arts in an exceptional way in the following months to make up for some or all of this emergency cutback.
Also, here’s an approach that you and I discussed by phone. Rather than forcing the Arts organizations into a “use it or lose it” April 30 deadline for a terminating contract, I suggest that the City maintain a 12-month contract throughout 2009 with the organization, but amend the overall 2009 contract amount to 4/12ths of its existing amount. I hope that helps organizations to spread a lower rate of spending over as many as 12 months, rather than plunge to zero on May 1st.
As I mentioned on the phone, I also will recommend to Council that we vote (by ordinance amendment) to suspend the 2% program for public art during 2009 and 2010, with the expectation that will save our General Fund about a quarter million dollars over two years. The good news is that, if the Winslow Way Project’s expenses come in below $12 million, then, as currently envisioned in the project budget that currently includes $2 million for contingencies, there is some money in the $7 million grant-funded and LID-funded portion of the project budget for public art. (As I think you realize, not one dollar of Winslow Way project expense is diminishing the dollars available for community organizations, because all of the tax-supported portion of the WWay project budget is funded with project-specific outside grant and LID money. If Winslow Way Reconstruction were completely canceled, it wouldn’t free up a single dollar for community organization contracts or any other tax-supported operations.)
I also favor Council approving the $60,000 Tourism Alliance proposal that BIAHC (partnering with the Chamber, Downtown Association and BILA) presented to our Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and which has been recommended by that committee. The City’s lodging tax revenues (which would fund that contract) were 25% over budget last year, and those dollars are legally restricted to funding projects (like the Tourism Alliance) that promote or serve visitors. The arts and business and lodging communities of the island bring millions of dollars of revenue to the city (e.g., nearly $2 million of our sales and lodging tax dollars in 2008, plus B&O and other taxes), and the sustainability of our community is benefitted by encouraging visitors to come enjoy what we love about this place.
Thank you for being so understanding of all of the above, when we discussed it on the phone on Friday. Let’s please keep the channels of communication open as we try to cope with this very extraordinary financial crisis year.
-Barry
The Finance Department report for January, 2009 does not show any payment for community programs. I wonder how they are paying their bills now?
I have heard that the city would like to have the March 18th meeting w/o the public being there. Can they do that? Seems like a violation of the open meetings act. I would also like to know how $800,000 was “unexpected”. I am way past the excuses for the amount of apparent cluelessness (is that a word?) when it comes to not knowing how much you have spent or when you are expecting a past-due bill. I now consider these newly found expenses as nothing more than incompetence in book keeping.
OF COURSE it’s a public meeting. Don’t be silly. For such an educated populace, you sure come up with some doozies.
Yes, it’s public. Yes, do come. Yes, make yourself comfortable because it’s a 9 hour meeting.
Good summary by Barry Peters. Big decisions ahead … and time is of the essence.
I see the litmus test of whether this Council is serious about reducing unnecessary tax funding coming in about 48 hours when a consent agenda item for $60,000 to fund a tourism alliance comes before the Council. What this $60,000 buys is yet another website to promote Bainbridge Island, and a ferry rack card to get someone to go to the site. There is about $40,000 in overhead built into the contract … that’s why it’s such a hot issue.
Lets see … the city already fully funded the development and all operating costs of the Bainbridge Island Lodging Association website. The Chamber of Commerce has website. The Downtown Association has a website. The Kitsap Visitors and Convention Bureau has a website. Vacation Rentals has a website. The Historical Museum has a website. The Children’s Museum has a website. Bloedel Reserve has a website. IslandWood has a website. Rotary Club has a website. Bainbridge Community Network has a website. Kitsap Virtual Communities has a website. City of Bainbridge Island has a website. Park and Recreation has a website. Farmer’s Market has a website. Arts and Humanities has a website. And the list goes on. All of these promote, in some form or another, Bainbridge Island.
So … is $60,000 from the City’s Civic Improvement Fund for another website and a rack card a common sense expenditure expenditure … especially considering the City Council has already approved $51,000 in tourist promotion contracts for 2009?
The City Council could use all of that money for Streetscape … something tangible and usable by Bainbridge citizens and tourists alike … by simply saying the city’s main street is a tourist attraction … which is obvious.
A tourism alliance isn’t a bad idea, but this CC has not considered any of the long term financial obligations that
will accompany this decision. And since all the voting members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee are Alliance members (except the one City Council member), they are going to have a financial field day with the Civic Improvement funds.
It’s painful to see some of the ways the current funds Civic Improvement are being used … like paying a local island consultant $75/hr to attend CC meetings and attend Chamber of Commerce socials and write local newsletters.
What a waste of taxpayer money. But the Council continues to approve the expenditures.
This little $60,000 contract isn’t going to do much to solve the city’s financial problems … but it’s a start.
Let’s see how the Council handles it as a first test.
The public meeting question is a good one since Mr. ( stick your head in the sand and let me run the Council/City) Peters is involved. I would love to hear the rationale for appointing him the head of the finance committee and/or the head of any committee. I know we ar suppose to be civil but when it comes to this buffoon it is extremely difficult. It will be interesting to see who he blames the changed situation on.
As many people have and will read the Peter’s position above-he has zero credability with many of us. It will be interesting to hear frfom Debbie and/or Bill on this for the real scoop. Mr Peters needs many more than 15 hours with anything to grasp a situation.
Rod–to answer your question, the city contracts call for pay out to the community organizations on a quarterly basis. We build our budgets based on the assumption that we will receive city payments within one month of the end of the quarter. The way we pay our bills is very, very carefully, and with faith that commitments and pledges from donors, grantors and government agencies will be fulfilled. When they are not, the struggle to survive becomes even more challenging than it is in ordinary times.
Lou appears to be a “quick study,” but has he at least riffled through the reports from Elray Konkel and Mark Dombroski to which Barry Peters devoted fifteen hours? I am also interested in what Debbie Vancil and Bill Knobloch make of the financial reports and projections, and maybe they can correct some of Barry’s sums or recommend different responses. Can we agree that an honest effort has been made to achieve “transparency,” as painful as that is, and set prejudices aside in favor of the facts and some hard choices?
CoBI is not in a unique position, created entirely by reckless spending and fudging of the facts (although I grant that such failures have made matters worse for the Council and the public). We are going to have to make do without some of the services, assets, and pleasures that we’ve grown accustomed to. And some citizens, who never cared much for the “extras” such as funding for the arts, may find something to celebrate in this turn of events.
My Dear Quinland-
A lack of credability established through months/years of being on the Council tells me first of his inability and secondly a total absence of what you call “honesty” in the past establishes what you call the “predudices”. Haven’t we had enough?
What we need on the Council are quality individuals who have credability, have capabilities, don’t have their own agendas, realize that they are responsible to the majority, aren’t deaf, and can think their way through problems.
There are City’s who have capable leadership who have no major issues with finances because they had people who understood how to run a checkbook, a simple exercise most of us do regularly. If we thought and spent like Mr. Peters and the Mayor we would all be in debt, spend more than we knew was coming into our accounts, be borrowing all over town, illustrating as they have that good and rational decisions are hard to come by.
Maybe the best thing we as a City could do is sell City Hall pay off our debts and go back to being managed by the County especially if the Mayor and Mr. Peters are the best we can roust for City Gov’t. positions!
Jon.
I find Barry’s analysis helpful, and disturbing at the same time. I am reassured that at long last he and others leading this City have stopped minimizing the extent of the City’s money problems. At this point, the crisis is so bad, the City has few options. Organizations that have acted responsibly, budgeted cautiously, and have relied on longstanding City promises, will pay a heavy price for profound and inexplicable mistakes in judgment by Peters and others.
The real problem for me is that in spite of countless public comments, letters and pleas from citizens and the minority 3 over the last 18 months, the administration and Council majority went ahead with its various spending practices, including over $1 million in Heery contract money that came straight out of the general fund last year. I recently watched a video of a CC meeting from last fall–during the September Wall Street crisis–where once again, Peters assured everyone that sufficient cuts had been made and the City had righted the ship (which was vigorously disputed by the minority 3). That was at least $7 million in shortfalls ago.
And yet neither the mayor, her staff nor the Council 4 have offered a word to the public to acknowledge their errors. There has been no effort to take any responsibility for failing to appreciate the financial crisis that was aimed our way–and loudly predicted by legions of citizens with no more expertise than an ability to read a newspaper.
Like so many islanders, I do not have confidence the same people who positioned us so poorly for this recession have the ability to lead us through it, at least not without decimating our city government and those who rely on it.
Althea-
Eloquently stated- Now what to do about the incompetency? We should be asking for the incompetent four to resign.
Like I stated above, who is Mr. Peters going to blame for the mess, as he seems always to have a scapegoat or excuse.
Possibly the BI Review might be convinced to run some of Mr. Peters quotes as to righting the ship, etc.
Jon Quitslund uses the important word “transparency”, an odd word to be associated with a government that doesn’t respond, and whose accounting is a mess.
Last week the Mayor put out a memo on the City’s financial position at the end of January. One part said the City’s tax-supported cash balance was in deficit by $190,000, while all of the tables show a surplus of $228,000. Neither Barry nor the Mayor responded to questions of which figure was right. Perhaps they don’t know.
Throughout the last year Barry minimized the extent of the City’s financial problems, problems that showed up months before the September financial crisis. Now Barry is sending a “Dear John” letter to the civic organizations that provide the most tangible and direct services funded by the City. A long, detailed letter, but a “Dear John” letter nonetheless. How typical that this came not from the Mayor but from Barry. Perhaps the real plaint is not the content, but letting himself be used once again by Darlene.
Note the Dear John ending to Barry’s letter:
“Thank you for being so understanding of all of the above, when we discussed it on the phone on Friday. Let’s please keep the channels of communication open…”
What kind of Law did Barry practice? Let me guess, whatever it was it did not involve the truth, and nothing but the whole truth.
And we elected him to do what? What a mess!
Two thoughts.
One is to thank Jon for joining the many to tell it like it is that “…CoBI is not in a unique position, created entirely by reckless spending and fudging of the facts …” “Fudging,” misrepresentating, even falsifying may even have become the norm for CoBI, as Jon words might be admitting, along with “reckless spending”, inappropriate, irresponsible, or perhaps unlawful expense allocations if what some are saying about the utility money is true. If all that is true, why should any of us believe that the latest expenditure of $1.2 million on the Heery International contract, on top of $4 million or more already spent on Winslow Tomorrow, is appropriate?
Then, I have to ask, why the Heery contract can’t be postponed one year to give our staffing cuts time to kick in? But no, the Council majority of 4 appears more willing to sacrifice the best of Bainbridge, a dozen plus organizations that deeply enrich our community from Helpline House to Bainbridge Performing Arts, the Housing Resource Board, Senior Center, Bainbridge Arts and Humanities, etc., etc. Those organizations that it took so many years to make them what they are today, that so many on the island value, treasure & depend on, and that also draw so much valuable tourist revenue to the island are to be sacrificed by the Council majority of 4. AND this same Council 4 intends to simultaneously demolish our downtown for a year or more.
It’s over if they have their way. This will no longer be “our” Bainbridge, the place we’ve known and loved.
Thank you Jon for speaking truth about the City’s “fudging” and “reckless” spending. I hope the Council 4 take your observation to heart and say that that has to stop, that Bainbridge deserves better.
There’s a not-so-obvious reason that the four won’t sacrifice Winslow Tomorrow: like the great white whale, this has become an obsession for the Mayor, and she has to spear it, even if this takes down the ship of government.
Small reminder: Council has no staff. They must rely on info provided by the mayor and her staff. Council members get $1K a month to attend meetings and end up spending an enormous amount of time reading reports that may or may not fall within their areas of expertise. Is it any wonder that we have candidates who run for the council unopposed?
We’re about to spend $75K (if memory serves) on a change of government election. It is (of course) a referendum on Darlene.
If she cared one whit about our community, she would resign immediately. Before she did, she would fire Elray (“let’s see what the numbers tell us this week”), our city “attorney” and a few others, so we could begin again.
We would still have to fund the election, but we could have a rational conversation about the relative benefits of council-mayor vs. council-manager.
My thanks to Althea for providing a great public forum. Such a “town square” is essential for correcting false rumors and innuendos from corrupting our democratic process for good government. My colleague’s letter identifies one certain fact; our present form of
government is not working. Reorganization due to lack of financial sustainability cannot be avoided.
When a municipality borrows money from utility fund [$600,000] to keep government running till the
property taxes show up, the Municipal Services Research Center [MSRC] calls this is a very big “Red Flag.”
I cannot help but wonder if the majority of the Council approved the inter-fund loan so as to spare the
Executive Department any concern that the Mayor’s favorite capital project would be derailed?
Change is difficult, especially when dealing with an established 18 year old bureaucracy.
On one point, the present approach by City Administration seems to be open and forthcoming when presenting present state of finances for that month or week. On the other hand, this is not working due to the continued decline in revenue that makes any previous data out of date and unworkable if you are to make a long term sustainable correction to any organization.
What is required is to identify a very conservative “baseline” [read property tax, utility tax, reduced sales tax, and legally required misc. cumulative fees] that you can count on through most financial storms.
Once that number is identified and an additional buffer is calculated for emergency reserves and contingency reserves, anyone can build a “new” organization that fits the cash flow.
It is very similar to what any household would do when one of the breadwinners loses their job. You rearrange your life style by deciding what you can afford after all the essentials are paid for.
Council will have to reevaluate the list of services that city governments are expected to deliver in light of the actual revenues available. The Community, Council, Mayor, and Staff will be participants in a very painful process. This has to be a permanent fix. A box of band-aids approach, suggested by a few, has as its primary focus, the saving of the present structure of City government, a favored project and personal agendas. This will only prolong and compound the chaos. The question remains;
Will we be observers to a situation that is more destructive/polarizing for the community or will we be part of a solution that builds trust while solving a very long term financial crisis?
Thanks for your patience, respectfully, Bill
This blog, rather than addressing specific issues and proposing alternative solutions, has become more of a rant board towards specific people.
Barry has described his basic financial approach. I would find the blog far more informative if the Barry and the “incompetent four” blasters would offer up their pathway vision through this financial downturn.
Arts and humanities and human assistance are not going to die on Bainbridge if the City cuts funding. Setback? Sure. But they will continue. The Red envelope becomes even more important.
The city has to provide basic services … public safety, utilities (for those the city is responsible for), road repair,
normal city hall services. The City will continue to function.
But something has to give unless someone wants to step up and hand the city some $3 million or so dollars.
And Winslow Way Streetscape isn’t the answer … the project going forward is not general fund money.
So I’m hoping this blog turns toward an intelligent discussion of what should be done.
Ideas are what is needed.
It seems to me that most of the dialog surrounding the City’s current financial condition is non-constructive and personal in nature. This City is in dire straits no doubt. Many of the problems have been around for many years, just not as visible, such as the lack of cash reserves or over dependence in real estate and development revenue. Other problems are very apparent, but more so with hindsight. Buying the Meigs and Williams’s properties were poor decisions. The City paid too much for land that was not needed by going in debt only to try and turn it over to Parks. What we need is the Mayor and Council to put aside their differences and work to make our government sustainable. Reducing the labor force will be necessary but it will not happen with some reductions in services we’ve come to expect. Public Art is what helps to make a City livable, but it is not a requirement in the short term, funding can come from other than taxes and therefore should be considered as a possible reduction. Health, Housing and Human Services has become an extension of the City with very little funds being raised outside the City’s payments. We should look at direct funding of the non-profits and remove the “middle man” and thereby reduce City costs. The City should sell any assets not needed. They own land all over the island and use almost none of it. Scale back on consultants for only those essintial needs that can not be met with in-house staff. And we, as the citizens, should support our Council and Mayor with loud, forceful, and constructive criticism. Maybe, just maybe, we will be heard and they will act in a responsible manner.
Robert, what are your ideas, please?
Meanwhile, the rest of you keep shouting for help, we have to stop the bleeding. Somebody somewhere please help the City of Bainbridge Island.
Robert,
regarding WW, it’s not general fund money YET.
Robert, surely by saying it’s “not general fund money” you’re not joining Barry’s chant that no one needs to worry about paying for the Winslow Way Streetscape because the ratepayers are paying for it, rather than taxpayers island wide?
What you appear to be suggesting is that it’s OK with you if just 20% of the population (1800 sewer ratepayers), who happen to be unfortunate enough to live within City boundaries (isn’t that New Brooklyn south to the water & Weaver on the west side, perhaps even further west, over to the water on the eastern side) pay the tab for the commercial upgrade of 1 block of Winslow Way, even though they benefit from it no more that those of us who live at the South or North ends of the island.
One thing I do know is that none of the South Bainbridge Water System water utility ratepayers paid a dime towards the upgrade of the Lynwood Center utility. That’s how it’s done on the island. The benefitting property owners pay – not those few who just happen to live inconveniently close (on New Brooklyn or Cave Avenue, perhaps). It’s astonishing to me that $2.3 million will be charged to the water utility (current estimate) & $1.7 million will be charged to the sewer utility so that 1 block of Winslow Way can achieve it’s dreamscape. This is wrong. Other island communities have formed a Local Improvement District to pay for such property improvements. Why are Winslow Way property owners being given a pass and allowed to shift that $4 million burden to meighbors who live many blocks away?
The ratepayers are getting shafted. This is just one example, and thank goodness folks are finally digging deep enough to find out just how badly they ratepayers have been shafted historically.
Having just completed the re-reading of all above it seems to me that citizens of this fair City are really perturbed with its management. It also seems to me that for the past three or four years all have tried to in a nice way express their concerns and disappointments, especially as they relate to WW. BUT and I repeat BUT, there seem to be four on the Council have their own agenda come hell or high water. It makes no difference what the taxpayer voters want and or suggest. And as a result of this project WW, the City and the four pushers have taken their eye off the ball and led the City to what appears to be financial ruin.
It is NO WONDER the citizens have given up being civil as this got no where and just allowed the four Council Members to extra time to push the Mayors ill thought out redo through.
I am wondering who it will be to stand up at the next Council meeting and ask for resignations. There are enough upset people that the form of Gov’t. will likely change in May, I guess that is a start but that doesn’t rid the Island of the Problem. She will then become a Council member and just give the goofy stare from another chair.
The way to bring this to a head I would think is to ask Mr Peters and The Mayor for their resignations! The constituents made the mistakes ( plural ) so the constituent voters need to acknowledge this and ask for the change.
Mr. Peters, I suppose, is trying to represent his constituents as well as possible. Just like all the other Council members. Yes, 4 Council members voted yes on Winslow Way project last month. But many citizens came and spoke for the project, and many also spoke against it. And maybe, the Council with its spit vote represented our community, which also appears split. But our problems go back many years and are not just Winslow. Ms. Vancil, Mr. Knobloch both has 7 years and Mr. Stoknes has 5 on the Council. And of course, the Mayor has 7 years in office. So if we are assigning blame, let’s not give Vancil, Knobloch and Stoknes a pass. Vancil and Knobloch might be popular with the anti-Mayor/City Government crowd, but that does not mean they’ve been effective. But rather than asking for resignations, let’s ask them to improve things, quit all the arguing and grandstanding, and learn to work with each other.
According to a survey, authorized by council and paid for by taxpayers last year, the citizens of this community did not put Downtown planning at the top of the 32 listed priorities. WW was # 30. Unfortunately, the use of phrase “Downtown planning” was used as a catch all instead of a specific project. However, the intent was obvious as to how the community felt about the importance of revitalizing a street or area versus other community needs.
As for the last seven years and the various solutions that I have worked on; I can only say that I trusted the appointed officials to provide the data essential for the decision making process. A lot has changed since January 2002………..
respectfully, Bill
Dear Concerned Citizen BI-
OK, lets make it easy. Sell City Hall pay off the debts and revert back to County management. We are the little City that could NOT.
There is too big a split for this to ever come together. You have a checkbook I assume and you don’t spend what you don’t have, and you must follow the economic situation and would not push thru what was on WW under current conditions. That is all the other three asked, and NOW YOU ARE ASKING THEM TO THROW THEIR BRAINS AWAY.
Come on. The idea of asking for resignations from the Mayor and Peters is the right thing to do.
Oooh baby, I see a couple of red penalty flags in the air. Concerned Citizen BI (CCBI) asserts that some minority city council members should bear the brunt for our present woes because of 1) the length of time they have been in office and 2) CCBI’s opinion that these council members have not been effective.
Point 1) Duration in office means nothing by itself without looking at how legislation was crafted and lobbied. Positive issues may be voted up or down depending on affordability and efficiencies. I happen to like how minority council members have vote most of the time. Point 2) could also be argued. How can city council members be responsible for poor staff management (the mayor’s territory), erratic quality of financial information coming from staff (again, the mayor’s turf) and questionable city legal counsel (ahem, again the mayor’s venue). Looks to me like the mayor holds more playable cards than any one city council member.
Finally, I don’t see any wisdom in city council members being in lock step with each other (though I, too, can do without grandstanding during meetings) especially when it comes to city finances. We have four council members who have increased taxpayer and utility debt and have a full blown romance going with Winslow Way property owners. My thanks to the dissenting Mr. Knobloch and Ms. Vancil for generally being accurate in calling the fouls as they see them happening. Game on.
Since someone asked, I’ll reiterate some of the specifics I would put on the table.
1. Number one on my list would be to remove taxpayer support for affordable housing. The city needs some affordably priced single family houses … it already has a reasonable amount of rental apartments and houses, and it has more than 250 units of subsidized housing.
The Community Land Trust model will work for about 25% of financially eligible people … it’s worked well in the San Juans, where housing is more expensive than Bainbridge. On Orcas Island, the Opal CLT have 94 affordable houses built or underway … ALL WITHOUT ANY LOCAL TAXES. It can be done with grants and donations … and the city’s role would be limited to zoning decisions.
Taxpayers are not being told how much the city is putting into affordable housing. It’s largely buried in the budget details. But the figure of around $800,000 for 2009-10.
Not all cities have ADU’s authorized … we do. The Ferncliff project will produce some affordable single family houses. Cottage housing can be zoned.
What it takes is the HRB to focus on grant writing and local donations from service organizations, churches, companies and individuals. On Orcas, they have done this successfully … and their population is about 5,000 people compared to our 23,180.
2. I love the arts and humanities, but they can survive without taxpayer assistance, at least until better time return. This is a wealthy and involved community, and the city has to get recalibrated to the basic responsibilities of government. Again … it will require a refocus by the arts and humanity managers to grants and community support, rather than asking for tax money.
3. Parks go to the Park District ASAP. Parks seem to me the reason to have a Park district, and they (Parks) have passed a bond that makes them far more financially capable of maintaining the parks than the city. As a long range plan, I would combine the Park district under the city, but that’s after the city gets running like a city should run.
4. Use half of the Civic Improvement Funds for Civic improvement … per intent of the COBI Code. This Council continues year after year to give it to tourism advertising and promotion. That should be limited to 50% of the revenue received. (Barry Peters wants a record amount to go for tourism advertising in 2009 … that has inflamed me for about 5 months. 24 hours to the litmus test).
5.. I would gap the deputy police position. Public Safety should be out top priority, but I think the Police Department is working OK with one leader at the top.
6. I would ask for an opinion if it would be cost effective to hire another city attorney rather than rely on outside legal firms. I believe Mercer Island has three … and they are about the same size city.
7. I would actually hire an kick ass auditor to work in the city. I see detailed invoices that just make my eyes roll. I see utility overheads that are out of line with common sense. I think paying an auditor would end up being a net cost savings.
8. I would put all Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association expenditures on the table. The Downtown Association has a program (legal) that keeps B and O taxes from the city. The Chamber of Commerce gets more than 200 downtown parking permits … then sells them to their business members. Taxpayers get nothing.
The Council has to be supportive of local businesses … but looking at the expenditures (or possible revenues) is a funding table subject.
9. Look at B and O taxes. According to AWC, Bainbridge is below the average city’s tax rate. Might not be a good time to consider a nadjustment, but put the numbers on the table and talk about it.
10. Do not expend money this year for the senior center or the police/court facility. There is a small amount of bond money involved.
11. Mark Dembrowski has done a very professional job downsizing the city staffing. I sense there might be some additional savings in Public Works … I’d defer to his professional judgment. But … I’d hope for perhaps two more staff cuts.
12. Every consultant contract would go through scrutiny to ensure it was (1) absolutely required and (2) could not be performed in-house.
13. I’d kill the Technical Development Right program. The city has spent tens of thousands of dollars and about 9 years studying and talking about it … it will not work on Bainbridge, and no more money should go towards it.
14. I’d reduce the Mayor’s contracting authority to $5,000, although I don’t believe she would abuse her current $10,000 authority in these financial trying times. But … Council could give anything over $5,000 an approval.
…
And finally, i was dead set against Winslow Tomorrow. I didn’t like the height, I didn’t like the density, and I never heard what it would cost since the city didn’t figure that out.
But I strongly support the only small portion of the original plan that made sense … redoing the streetscape. I photographed main streets all over the State, and Winslow Way has to be one of the worst in the state. Broken and narrow sidewalks … terminally ugly utilities … little fishing ponds in the street when it rains, although some flooding when it rains hard … and sort of just plain ugly. If you don’t think so … get off the island and see what other main streets look like.
I don’t feel the Streetscape financing plan is not a bad one … although sewer rate payers are going to get a double whammy with the big cost numbers that have emerged from the WWTP. That’s what ratepayers should primarily be upset with. I advocated $2 million general fund support for streetscape … that didn’t go anywhere. But the new street will be here for perhaps 50 years … it’s really a very small amount of money (after considering the grants) for a big community infrastructure, safety and visual improvement.
…
OK … Flame away!! Remember … I’m a citizen with ideas … not a council member.
I agree with much of what Mr. Knobloch has to say about the finances & reorganization. However if what the Kitsap Sun is reporting today is true, he is also advocating no cuts in city spending and only a slash & burn at city hall in jobs. I don’t see that as a sensible approach (something about the ability to own a cake & devour it too). You can cut all the jobs you want and still spend your way into bankruptcy. I think there are a few more postions to be eliminated but there is also a good sum of money on non-essential items that can be reduced or eliminated at least on a temporary basis.
Contracting out everything is not the best (or only) solution. As far as I know, no one at the city or council has any reliable report or facts that disclose the costs and exact return in services you would get from contracting out any job. I hate to use the ugly “consultant” word, but if someone wants to pursue the avenue of contracting out services it really needs a cost/benefit analysis to be done. And that costs money. Since the city has valid contracts with at least two labor organizations for another two years or so, how does Mr. Knobloch propose getting out of those legal obligations to save money now?
Mr. Dashiell has some very good points that I agree with, as does Mr. Knobloch and Mr. Peters. Now if we could get them all together…
Hunter: “Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging.” We will see if our local government has what it takes to get us out of this mess without more of the same.
The Kitsap Sun article is strictly the reporter’s calculations. My conversation with him was based on my previous comments on this blog. Before you can do any cuts, you have to know what kind of revenue you can count on. Till that figure is agreed upon, we are spinning our wheels with more and more pontification.
How many staff can this city have that fits within the reorganization that can deliver the services we can afford? Until we can have that kind of discussion during the coming workshop, we will have a very painful exercise. We cannot continue “Business as Usual” attitude that seems to be prevalent during the workshops.
As a council member my job is to give city administration the parameters to make the decisions that are necessary to fit the new model that is necessary at city hall. Along with that, is the necessary task of defining the priorities [water?] that are most important for the community. Enough said at this point. Respectfully, Bill