Knock Three Times

The Commissioners of the Port, City of Shelton, County and PUD 3 met on January 29, 2010. The agenda included an update on ADAGE, discussion of the Shelton Urban Growth Area Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County, and last but not least the water agreement among the City, Port and PUD 3.

ADAGE: Lee Torrens gave a power point briefing describing his company, the technology and the potential for this model plant within Mason County. He offered to hold one on one briefings with each of the commissioners (to avoid the open public meetings act???). We learned that the permits are not in place for this first of its kind plant. We also learned that Economic Development and the Port of Shelton knew a lot more about this proposed plant than did at least two of our county commissioners. In fact Lynda and Ross stated they have never been briefed.

While all of the commissioners at the table could ask what appeared to be their politically correct questions, private citizens in attendance on Friday were limited to three questions. Ross Gallagher sitting as the chair of this joint meeting came up with the rule that only three questions would be allowed. As we were told by Lee Torrens, his job is to control the message and the expectations for the plant plus he needed to catch a plane to get home to his family in Montana.

Kudos to Lynda Ring Erickson for offering to hold public meetings in District 1 about this plant. There are a lot of questions that need answering - way more than just the three allowed by Ross Gallagher on Friday. Thank you Lynda for standing up for us amidst that love in. There's too much at stake for the strategic interests of the citizens of Mason County to rush this through the approval process. Maybe after our questions are answered and we have more information, we'll all agree this is a good idea. But let's not just jump to a hasty conclusion without bringing the public into the loop.


Shelton UGA: The County and City are working on an interlocal agreement regarding the Shelton Urban Growth Area. The City has approved its version of this agreement and now the County needs to make changes in building permits, zoning and utility standards. What I picked up as one possible bone of contention is what the home occupation and cottage industry standards will be. Teri Jeffries representing the Shelton Mason Chamber of Commerce said that her overall hope was that City and County officials not place City standards on the County and that whatever standards are adopted that they be phased in as it makes sense to the "market". Jay Hupp was glad to hear that both the City and County are still open for revisions particularly for realtors and master builders as well as interested citizens. More to come on this one.



Water Agreement among the City, Port and PUD 3: We heard a consistent theme: at first "the stars were aligned" and then "the sun, the moon and the stars were aligned" as those sitting at the table spoke of the proposed agreement. Wouldn't you expect the City and Port to both agree that something celestial has occurred when you can see the potential for getting PUD 3 rate payers to pay for the water line that is so going to benefit both the Port and City?

Jay Hupp offered this proposed agreement wouldn't have happened if it had not been done secretly by their staffs. Both the City and PUD 3 will be addressing this agreement at their meetings this week.

Watch for this to be fast track approved.

Ross allowed just three questions for this controversial topic. People in attendance were asking questions like: where's this water coming from? To which Dave O'Leary said the City has water rights but doesn't know whether the capacity is there or not and that's the way these projects are done.

He said what? I'm thinking Dave O'Leary is getting pretty close to receiving the "Are You Kidding?" award.

Stay tuned to see where this water agreement goes.

One Citizen's Priority List for 2010

As we start this new year, there is some unfinished business that I'd like to see resolved by our county legislative authority.

1. Settling the contracts with 10 of 11 bargaining units must be given a top priority. The commissioners may not like working with unions but they are a fact of life in the county and must be dealt with.

2. Holding a budget workshop that focuses on the Belfair Waste Water Treatment Facitlity. This one project constitutes more than one third of the county's total 2010 budget. And the citizens and taxpayers were not provided detailed information on this project prior to the Dec 7, 2009 budget hearing. Now we need to hear the plan for how they are going to spend this money.

3. Developing and adopting comprehensive procedures for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is important because there is a loss of public trust associated with this fund. Standard procedures must be adopted that will eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest and include clear criteria for accepting or rejecting proposals to enhance tourism in the county.

4. Selecting and purchasing a replacement for the obsolete financial software currently being used by the Auditor's office would go a long way toward increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of how our tax dollars are received and spent. The commissioners' have given Public Works the green light to purchase new financial software for their use. It sure appears to me they have the cart before the horse. Let's get the overall county system in place first or do both Public Works and the Auditor's office all at the same time.

5. Returning the $200K taken from the Mental Health Fund in 2009 in order to run the day to day business of the county. The transfer of this money continues to be scrutinized by the State Auditor's office. These dollars were set aside to help those who have nearly no advocates in this county. The same authority to put the revenue into the Mental Health Fund is the same authority used for collecting revenue for the Veteran's Fund - a fund with outspoken advocates. No one would propose taking precious funding from Veterans.

6. Fixing the Accrued Leave Balance Fund so that it is sustainable. Mason County citizens have an unfunded bill hanging over our heads in excess of $2M. This has been allowed to occur by our commissioners even while they violated a county resolution that requires them to be on track to get this 100% funded.

This is my short list of priorities for the Board of County Commissioners. When you see the commissioners, ask them what their plans are for the new year.

Ross Gallagher Forgot Who He Works For

At the Jan 26 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting Ross Gallagher sat as the formal chair of this committee.

In a previous blog I shared with you my LTAC analysis and questions which I'd hand delivered to the three commissioners on Jan 18. As I stated in my letter to the BOCC, I understood the public wouldn't be allowed to ask questions or make comments at the Jan 26 LTAC meeting. For that reason I provided my questions well in advance in order to get them answered.

I am sad to report today that at the meeting Ross Gallagher refused to ask my questions or to even ask the LTAC members to respond to my questions in writing.

Last night at the BOCC meeting I expressed my disappointment directly to Ross. He responded that it wasn't his job to ask any questions of the LTAC. He was just there to chair the committee. And a poor job he did of that. It appeared to me that a couple other members of the committee were actually running the meeting.

The one glimmer of hope in the meeting came from Teri Jeffries, Shelton Mason Chamber of Commerce. She spoke of the need for standard procedures. One lone voice that gave us just a thread of hope that someone is actually listening to those pesky citizens who may vote by the way.

After working many long hours on this fund, I've sadly concluded that as it stands today within Mason County LTAC dollars are not really public revenue. It's a mere formality that this revenue passes through the Mason County Treasurer's books. There are no criteria for what event receives grant funding. It's totally subjective and not just a little bit personal.

You and I do not have a voice today in how the lodging taxes are spent. But we will have a voice on election day. Enough said.

NEWS RELEASE: The First "Get Real Award"

On January 25, 2010 Mr Gary Burleson, Mason County Prosecutor was awarded the first "Get Real Award" for his candidness and exceptionally eloquent language as he told the Board of County Commissioners "how it really is". (See previous blog posting for more detail.)

This award was presented to him by the author of this blog who was totally amazed and not just a little amused by his ability to speak in a straight forward manner - even in the Commissioners Chambers and in public.

Of particular interest is the fact that briefings to the county commissioners are now being recorded. Even though only one private citizen was there to hear Mr Burleson "get real", it has been recorded for posterity and you too could listen to it.

Watch this blog for more awards. One that's been suggested is the "Are You Kidding?" Award.

Any suggestions on awards is greatly appreciated. You can comment here or email the author at: brendahirschi@comcast.net".

Deal with it!

At today's county commissioner's briefing the Prosecutor quite bluntly told two of the commissioners that his office was not going to do their job. Commissioner Sheldon split just before Mr Burleson came in for his briefing. So the two remaining were left to receive the direct undiluted message.

Since the county's Human Resources Director, TJ Martin was fired the commissioners' staff has been turning to the Prosecutor's office for answers to their questions. Monty Cobb (an attorney in the Prosecutor's office) said that each day he's fielding up to six questions which in the past were handled by Mr Martin.

Mr Burleson went on to say that Commissioner Sheldon asked him how much he needed to continue working the issues for the Board. He said he really regretted that Tim wasn't in attendance because the answer to that question was, "There isn't enough money for my office to continue doing your job and it's not in the best interest of the citizens." Then he went on to say the next time the commissioners or their staff have a problem, "Deal with it! Just don't call me." He was also very clear that when there was a clear legal question, his staff would be there to help them but not to fill in for people they fired or released in 2009.

Now here's the problem for John Q Public, you and me. We've got only one of eleven bargaining units with a signed contract. Of particular concern is the fact that the Deputies Guild has had no signed contract in four years. The Board of County Commissioners has been counting on someone else doing their work to include the negotiation of these union contracts. Now that's backfiring on them. (See my previous blog "Staff Driven" for more on how little real attention our BOCC pays to county business.)

The HR/B&F newly combined position has been advertised but they can't find an applicant who has both of these specialized skills. Today Commissioner Gallagher admitted that this newly combined position is really two people: an HR type and a Budget type. (Much as I wanted to say "I told you so" I didn't.) Commissioner Ring Erickson noted that she voted against this position from the start.

Stay tuned for more on this. I think we've only begun this "thoughtful conversation".

Joint Meeting with Discussion on ADAGE

The City of Shelton, Port of Shelton and Mason County will hold a joint meeting on Friday, Jan 29, 2010 at 11 am in the County Commissioners Chambers.

As of today I'm told the agenda includes discussion of ADAGE, the Shelton Urban Growth Area, and the City Municipal Water System.

Please pass the word on to others who may want to hear more on these timely topics.

Taking the Public out of County Business

At the county commissioners meeting January 19, former county commissioner Annette McGee asked for clarification about a consent agenda item. The item at question allowed the Director of Public Works (Charlie Butros) to "sign all pertinent documents and authorize the Public Works County Engineer to advertise, set bid dates and times, and award the contract." All of this power with the sole requirement that he come back to the Board with an announcement of which contractor had received the award.

In response to Ms McGee's question the Board members were caught flat footed. Mr Butros said that this process was in place to eliminate any back and forth involvement of the three commissioners which was just too time consuming. Further he said this had been done now for three or four years.

Ms McGee said this responsibility is the the job of the Board of County Commissioners and that we didn't elect the Director of Public Works. She asked that they reconsider this procedure and encouraged them to not shut the public out.

Yesterday's meeting provided further evidence to my Dec 19, 2009 posting "Staff Driven". Our county commissioners have sub contracted what we elected them to do. There are only three county commissioners. Public Works isn't a fourth county commissioner.

Questions and Concerns about Tourism Funding

After the Tuesday, January 13 Board of County Commissioners meeting, I took the criteria Ken Wilson testified the LTAC had used to evaluate each application for grant approval in 2010. The five criteria were: "heads in beds", preferred date of event (Oct thru April), budget driven documentation, advertise out of county, and marketing plan.

I used these criteria to review the 2010 and 2009 application. I also reviewed the 2008 accomplishment reports against these criteria. I wasn't able to detect any consistent pattern showing that Mr Wilson's stated criteria had influenced the recommendations.

My conclusion is that Mason County needs a set procedure for the LTAC grant approval process for 2011 and that it should be folded into the budget development process and public hearing held the first Monday in December.

I've been told that at the meeting on January 26, the public will not be allowed to ask questions. I've asked Commissioner Gallagher to ask the following questions on my behalf since I won't be allowed to speak at the LTAC meeting.

1. In the Olympic Peninsula Loop Culinary Tour the application indicates they are applying for 501c(6) status in 2010. Isn't 501c(3) or 501c(6) status required for funding? This organization received funds in 2009 also.

2. When is the Olympic Peninsula Loop Culinary Tour scheduled to occur? I can't find the dates in the application.

3. Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Frank Kinney are members of the board for the Olympic Peninsula Loop Culinary Tour. Will they both abstain from voting on this particular application?

4. Please ask the North Mason Chamber of Commerce and the Joint Tourism Board to provide additional detail on how the budget will be spent and performance indicators so that the public will know what we can expect for the grant funding provided.

5. Please ask both Chambers of Commerce and the Joint Tourism Board to explain how they gathered the actual data reported for the 2008 grant funding. How is it that one chamber reports that 45% of visitors will stay overnight in Mason County while another reports only 10%? Such a disparity in overnight stays requires additional research into underlying assumptions or means of calculation.

6. Why is an event given 2010 grant funding when that event did not provide an expenditure report for 2008? This report was due in May 2009. Shouldn't this be a condition of receiving grant funding in following years?

7. All applicants should be asked what other lodging tax dollars they are due to receive from other municipalities in 2010.

8. Would the sponsors of the website "Explore Hood Canal" provide a clear statement that the website is funded by Hotel/Motel Tax dollars? For that matter this should be a given that all recipients of grant money will clearly declare that funding was received from public revenue.

Connecting the Dots

After you've read the below description of what's going on in the county, please consider attending a meeting on Jan 29, 2010 (place and exact time still unknown) when there is going to be an update on ADAGE.


I'm going to describe for you an example of how our public revenue is being spent and the pattern of alliances that I've noted. The stake holders involved include the Port of Shelton, Mason County, PUD 3, City of Shelton, and a new business called ADAGE. But one critical stakeholder is not "showing up" - the public is only marginally represented at key meetings where our elected officials are deciding what to do with public revenue.

At the Jan 6, 2010 legislative planning session, the Mayor and the Commissioners (county, city, port, & PUD 3) gathered to make the case for mostly road project funding. Tim Sheldon sat at the table as a county commissioner and state senator so I had trouble keeping up with which hat he was wearing. Also in attendance were State Representative Fred Finn and staffers for US Senator Murray and US Representative Norm Dicks. In a corner of the room sat two lonely citizens - an under represented stakeholder.

Our local elected officials requested support for funds to build or upgrade roads so that the John's Prairie portion of the Port of Shelton can be developed. The county estimates a cost of around $18 million to fix the current very dangerous intersection of SR3/John's Prairie Road intersection. Big PUD 3 trucks will need access to the new facility via this road. The city requires just under $20 million to upgrade Wallace Kneeland so that big trucks can get into the John's Prairie portion of the Port of Shelton. Neither the state elected officials nor the staffers held out any hope that $$$ would be coming our way in 2010 - not even federal stimulus money.

However, we're still not done with all the stakeholders involved. Let's talk about a business (referred to as ADAGE) that some want to bring to Mason County. Senator/Commissioner Sheldon has been pushing hard for construction of a plant that will turn woody biomass into electricity. Some question whether there is enough woody biomass to keep the plant running. Others question whether this model plant would prove to be economically viable. The site that will work for construction of this model plant is the John's Prairie portion of the Port of Shelton. ADAGE will need heavy-duty roads and also lots of water, as in 60 to 80 acre feet per year or so we were told at the legislative planning meeting. That's why the PUD 3 construction is the first step in making all of these other pieces fit.

The construction of PUD 3 is coming along through the approval process by two of the three PUD 3 commissioners with hardly any opposition or apparent interest of the public. Three county residents have been fighting this for all of us. In this economic downturn why isn't there more involvement of the public when the ultimate debt will be about $45 million and that doesn't include the upgrades to the roads? The PUD 3 customers are going to end up paying big bucks for this construction debt. Is the construction of this facility necessary and essential and is it in our best interest? Or is there another option that wouldn't cost so much?

As private citizens we need to know what is being agreed to amongst these elected officials and what it means to our pocket book. We are the main stakeholders. I urge you to get involved in the city, county, PUD 3, and port business. This is our money. Let's stop passing on debt to our children and grandchildren.

John Komen's article on PUD 3

Here's an article that John Komen gave me permission to post.


By JOHN KOMEN

What's the big pocketbook issue in Mason County in 2010? In this sorry economic climate, everything saps your pocketbook, that is if you're fortunate enough to have a pocketbook. Pick one issue, however, and it has to be the power bill--the fear your electricity bills are going up.
Public Utility District 1, serving the small Potlatch service area, has already announced it wants to raise electricity bills by 4 per cent. But PUD 3, the major electricity provider, serving 32,536 Mason County owner/ratepayers, loudly proclaimed no rate hike this year.
Don't be fooled. PUD 3's declaration was a pre-emptive strike.
PUD 3 is faced with a growing protest over its needlessly expensive $45 million plan to move its offices and operations to Johns Prairie. It must necessarily, then, try to reassure everyone that all is well. Hey, folks, cried PUD 3 just before 2009 expired. Not to worry--we're not going to raise your rates in 2010! Trust us!
We're holding down costs, said the announcement rolled out by its well-oiled and costly public relations machinery. Our 2010 budget is a bit lower and we've even managed to lay off a worker or two, bragged PUD 3 in its no-rate-hike proclamation.
The elephant in the room, however, is that screwball plan to build a grand new palace of offices and cushy operations quarters. Keep the public apathetically calm, and maybe they won't notice we're spending $45 million of their money, the PUD 3 managers claim.
But there are signs the smokescreen won't work. The white elephant is getting more attention. More citizen activists are stepping forward to join the steadfast cadre of owner/ratepayers protesters concerned about how that $45 million impact will rates in the future.
With County Courthouse controversies on the wane, citizens worried about costly county government activity can turn their attention to the PUD 3 boondoggle. Already there is evidence some of those active in the County Commissioners' budget hassle are looking at PUD 3.
Most important was the filing of an action by Shelton businessman Tom Pearson. He has brought an appeal against PUD 3's formal declaration its Johns Prairie construction will have no impact on the environment.
On his own time and at his own expense, Pearson single-handedly is challenging the legitimacy and credibility of the so-called "determination of environmental non-significance". It is a Herculean task. It is a lot to ask of a Shelton small businessman.
PUD 3 immediately hired a $395 an hour attorney from a high-powered Seattle law firm to fight Pearson's citizen appeal.
So the battle is shaping up. It is the people and their pocketbooks vs. PUD 3, its lawyers and its plan to spend $45 million.

- - - - - - -

John Komen is a former television journalist and newspaper editor. He was an Obama delegate to the 2008 state Democrat Convention. John and wife Diane live in retirement on Mason Lake.

Still Following the Money

When I started studying the Mason County Budget, I had two goals one was to understand the budget myself and a second goal was to help other people understand the budgeting process in hopes that more citizens would become involved in local government. I believe that citizens have a responsibility to make an effort to be informed and that we are the key stakeholders in public policy. I fundamentally believe that all revenue passing through the Treasurer's office is our money.

After watching the budget development process through two years, I've come to a clearer understanding of what I'm up against. Our legislative authority apparently does not want the public to be involved and able to understand what is happening with our money. If a private citizen with decades of experience and education in budgeting works as if it is a full time job to follow the county's budget development process but cannot keep up with what's happening with the budget - then how can an individual with a job and a family ever have any hope of understanding how her money is being spent?

I'll give three examples of why I am losing faith that this legislative body is working in an open and fair manner and in the interest of all citizens.

1. Between Dec 7 and Dec 8 the County Commissioners changed the budgeted amounts for REET 1 and Rural Sales and Use Tax Funds - but never bothered to share these changes with the public. On Dec 7 at the budget hearing the Auditor's office provided a spreadsheet with summary changes from the Nov 21 budget. That was the last change we were given. We found what the Commissioners really approved as our 2010 budget posted out on the website one day. We heard yesterday that complete detail on what was approved will be provided to the public at the end of January. The Rural Sales & Use Tax was increased by $400K and the REET 1 Fund was increased by $350K. Overall the Commissioners increased various Special Funds by a net of $909K. All of these changes may have been completely justifiable but the fact is that the Commissioners did not make any effort to keep the public informed as the changes were being made.


2. When I went before the Board of County Commissioners last week to share my independent research on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, I was stunned with the response by Commissioner Sheldon. His comments directed at me showed clearly that he did not share my basic concerns that the current LTAC process gives the appearance of a conflict of interest by some members and that clear criteria need to be used to evaluate grant applicants in order to avoid the appearance of subjective recommendations and approvals. Seems to me what I'm asking for are very low expectations.

3. At the briefing on Jan 11 the three Commissioners and the briefer each had copies of a draft contract from the city which they were discussing. When I asked for a copy of this I was told that I couldn't have it. Instead I was told that I should go to the city and ask for a copy. The information in this document should be open information if discussed in a briefing open to the public. The Commissioners appear to want to have it both ways: open public meeting but with the public kept in the dark about what is being discussed.

Today I understand better how hard some of us are going to need to work to level the playing field in Mason County. The citizens of this county deserve no less.

Level Playing Field for Tourism Dollars

As I follow the money in Mason County my most recent research focused on the Motel/Hotel Tax Fund. I discovered that within this county there are systems and procedures, which I question are in the best interest of the public in general.


Here's what I found.

1. The heads of the North Mason Chamber of Commerce, the Joint Tourism Board, and the Shelton Mason Chamber of Commerce receive 90% of the recent Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommendations for reimbursement in 2010. These two executive directors are members of the six member advisory committee even while they received a portion of their 2009 salaries from the Hotel Motel Tax Fund.

2. More questionable still is my discovery that the head of the North Mason Chamber of Commerce in 2009 approved reimbursement of his salary and that the county accepted this as valid and proper documentation for payment.

3. When I reviewed the applications for those individuals appointed to this advisory committee, I found that one member had no application on file with the county and that the other five had for the most part provided only name, address and phone numbers. The rest of the application particularly disclosure of any conflicts of interest was basically incomplete.

4. I also attempted to discern what criteria the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee used to evaluate requests for lodging tax grants. I say "discern" because I didn't find by laws or clearly stated criteria for evaluation. Minutes of the most recent meeting are not available at this time. The closest I came to what was used to accept or reject a request was this notion of "heads in beds". I compared this to what other local municipalities used for evaluation and found that "heads in beds" was overly simplistic.

5. The committee's recent recommendations show that for the two chambers of commerce and the joint tourism board there was support for their organizations proposals totaling $179K but rejection of small requests. No to Harmony Hills for $5K to support the Summer Fest. No to Anna's Bay for $4K to support a holiday event. No to Harstine Island Community Choir for $3K. SOCK requested $2K but the committee cut that in half. Someone needs to explain the fairness of this committee's proposed distribution. I can't find it.

Given these findings here are my recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

1. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided. For all advisory committees not just the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee begin today ensuring that the county has on file a completed advisory committee application stating whether or not there is potential for conflict of interest. Check out Kitsap County's policy on conflicts of interest surrounding the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. If you receive money from this Motel Hotel Tax Fund in Kitsap County then you can't sit on the committee for the year you are receiving a grant.

2. Look at other municipalities such as Federal Way for best practices and written procedures to enhance and increase tourism in Mason County. They have a most comprehensive document.

3. In 2010 give the smaller requests a closer look using more than "heads in beds" as a means to accept or reject proposals.

4. Relook the makeup of the LTAC. State law requires an equal number of revenue generators versus revenue spenders. Documentation for the 2010 process shows two generators, three spenders and one at large member with no elected official chairing as required by RCW 67.28. Further state law requires the appointing authority to review membership of this committee annually.

I want to make very clear where I stand on two aspects surrounding this fund.

First of all, I am not accusing any individuals of wrongdoing. Instead what I want to underscore is that for a reasonable person the processes and systems in place give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Secondly, I believe that increasing tourism is good for our county's economy and local businesses. By all means let's work together to increase tourism. But let's make sure we have a level playing field and that all of us know what the rules are and how we're keeping score.