07/08/2008: "Reduced Bonding Proposed For Development"

Community Development & Planning Director Ron Hendrickson gave an explanation at the Monday morning County Council meeting on what a performance bond is, and why they are used. The presentation raised more questions than it answered, and led to some strong comments from Councilman Gene Knapp on the need for fairness and equal treatment of everyone.

Henrickson began the presentation by explaining the bonds were used to insure work required by a permit would be completed on a project by having money held -by bonding or cash- that the County could use to complete a project if the owner failed to act.

Henrickson said a proposed change in the regulations would allow the Administrator to “make a reduction or different amount for affordable housing.” Henrickson said it was acceptable to do this, because affordable housing is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan.

There are a lot of goals in the Comprehensive Plan, and Councilman Gene Knapp asked Henrickson “is this for a specific project? Is this why it comes up now?”

Henrickson said “we are looking at a request from OPAL for a performance bond,” but he gave no explanation as to why it was needed by OPAL. OPAL builds affordable housing units.

Knapp said he though more discussion was in order with Administrator Pete Rose before agreeing to the request, since it will be he who makes the decision.

Henrickson then hesitantly said the it was possible “we would proceed with the performance bond this week.”

This concerned Knapp, who told Henrickson he was not sure he agreed with the proposal, because “every time I go to a public meeting, a number of people stand up and tell me how hard line the Planning Department is with them and won’t concede with them on anything, even things that appear to be very unreasonable; and then along comes a project that you favor, and your immediately willing to not use best practices, and drop it down.”

Henrickson attempted to correct Knapp by stating “First of all, it’s not me, this is the County Administrator, I’m simply providing the information,” at which point Councilman Ranker interjected: “Don’t kill the messenger.”

But Knapp quoted a memo on the subject from Rose that stated “CD&P Director (Hendrickson) wanted my concurrence” on the proposal. Knapp asked “Is that you?” Henrickson said that it was, and began to define “concurrence” when Knapp cut him off by stating his objections to the request.

Knapp said he ”favored affordable housing, and if we can give them a break, that’s fine; but this is a democracy and everybody is supposed to be treated equally, and when 99% of the public don’t feel that’s the case, I don’t like seeing one that you favor getting a break.”

“If everyone else can get reasonable treatment, then I agree.” Knapp added.

Knapp asked Henrickson that “My understanding is that if there is a risk that comes up, the tax payer’s will have to pay for it”.

Ranker then said he had no problem with “moving forward with this” as long as the bond was sufficient to protect the tax payer.

Councilman Rich Peterson said he had a problem with what “moving forward” means? What are we being asked to do here?” It then became apparent that the Council was unsure who was doing what, and why. Ranker said it was his understanding they were only being briefed on it, since Rose had the authority to do this, and Councilman Lichter said it was his understanding Rose had already made the decision.

Councilman Bob Myhr said he concurred with Knapp, and added that he thought it was a policy matter and not an administrative matter; and that it was important that “everyone be treated fairly and properly.”

The questions arose because, while Henrickson is the Pro-tem County Administrator in Rose’s absence (Rose was at a meeting on the mainland), Henrickson was unable to respond to the questions and concerns to the level needed to resolve the issue, and said he would discuss the matter with Rose when he returns. It is expected Rose will present the proposal to the Council on Tuesday