Category Archives: Parks & Recreation

Risks for Community Center-YMCA deal

Posted on by
4

I appeared before the City Council Oct. 9 to make a public comment about something I read in the Sammamish Review concerning the proposed YMCA-Community Center deal and advisory vote.

The article, at this writing, is not on the paper’s website. The paragraph that caught my eye was this:

“Councilman Don Gerend said he didn’t think voters should worry about the prospect if the YMCA backing out of the agreement several years in if the facility is running a large annual deficit–the council would never sign off an agreement that left the city at risk for that.”

I disagree with this statement and appeared at the meeting to say so. (Also at this writing, the tape of the meeting has yet to be posted to the city’s website. My comments are within the first 15 minutes of the meeting when it is posted.)

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Community Center is running a big deficit that the YMCA would come back to the city council to renegotiate the contract. Nor is there any doubt the if the Community Center becomes a black hole the Y wouldn’t seek to walk away. A contract is only as good as the next crisis and then it’s a starting point to renegotiate.

In an unusual move, several members of the council broke from practice and commented on my comments. Mayor Tom Odell said the Y has every motivation to make the deal work: a $5m capital investment and a $1m investment in staff and support time. I agree. But what if the deal doesn’t work? Fiduciary duty demands you change the deal or take the loss and get out.

With respect (and I meant it), I said Gerend’s remarks were naive and blithely dismissive of voters. Council Member Nancy Whitten said it was her understanding the contract would have a mutually-agreed termination clause. If Whitten is right (and I suspect any contract would include such a clause) Gerend’s statement is also misleading.

Councilman John Curley remarked that if the Y can’t make a go of it as a 501 (c) 3 and with taxpayer dollar support, then no private enterprise could do so.

If the Y walks, I said the city will have 100% responsibility for the Community Center.

Citizens have a right to know the risks of this deal since they are being asked to vote on it.

I have yet to decide how I will vote in the silly advisory vote, but I do know that the city isn’t forthcoming to the citizens with all the facts, details and risks so that voters can make an informed choice on the Nov. 6 ballot. By law the city can’t promote the vote but I believe it can sit down with the paper and answer a series of detailed questions posed by the reporter. I suggested the city do so.

Previous posts I’ve written on this topic may be found:

Citizens for Sammamish Community Forum

Why the Advisory Vote is a Bad Idea, Part 2

Why the Advisory Vote is a Bad Idea, part 1

Another risk factor: The Y’s representative told the Council on July 16 she did not know when the operation will break even. Any business plan should have this projection. The inability to answer this question suggests there is no business plan.

Frankly, if I were on the Y board and my staff came to me asking to spend $5m but didn’t have a business plan to say when the project would break even, I’d fire somebody. (Like Mitt Romney, I like having this option.) If I were on the city council and staff came to me seeking $25m and there wasn’t a business plan for this project, I’d throw them out of the room. (Only the city manager can hire and fire in the city manager form of government.)

I don’t have any philosophical issues with public-private partnerships under certain circumstances and if the deal is structured properly. It’s a way to stretch dollars and turning government functions over to private enterprise to operate more efficiently is a well-known principal advocated by both political parties (but mostly Republicans, which thereby perplexes me with our local critics who are Republicans opposing on principal this public-private partnership).

But up to this point, this deal seems to be poorly thought out and rushed to put it to an advisory vote, subjecting the citizens to voting on something on which they are largely without facts.

Debating the Community Center

Posted on by
2

There was a debate Monday night over the pros and cons of the proposed public-private partnership between Sammamish and the YMCA for a $30m community center. The City Council authorized an advisory vote in the November election.

The election statement, and the pro and con arguments, appear in the King County Voters Guide here.

The City Council’s resolution authorizing the advisory vote is here.

As we’ve previously written (and here), we think an advisory vote is a waste of the $50,000 it will cost to hold it.

We weren’t able to attend the debate but it was video taped.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Here’s more on why a Community Center advisory vote is a bad idea

Posted on by
5

I previously posted why the idea of a non-binding advisory vote is a bad idea for the Community Center. Here are more reasons.

The non-binding advisory vote only truly “works” if the vote is affirmative. It doesn’t work for a whole host of reasons if the vote is negative.

If the voters reject the Community Center, the City won’t know why. Is it because the voters:

  • Didn’t like the cost, some $30 million?
  • Didn’t like the size–is it too big or too small?
  • Didn’t like the pool–is it too small to offer competitive swimming, or should there be one at all?
  • Don’t know what happens to the staging area for the Fourth of July fireworks, which is where the Community Center is supposed to go–where do the fireworks go when displaced by the Center?
  • Don’t like that 75% of the capital costs are being paid by the City for a facility to be operated by a private entity?
  • Don’t like the very idea of a public-private partnership?
  • Don’t know when the facility will break even? The YMCA at the July 16 meeting doesn’t have a firm projection when the facility will break even. The absence of a firm business plan is, to me, rather alarming.
  • Don’t like competing with the privately-owned Pine Lake Club and Columbia Club?

The City won’t have a clue why this might be rejected.

The voter’s pamphlet language hasn’t been made public yet but presumably this will be an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote. Will the public even have answers to their questions in order to make an informed decision? I consider this highly unlikely, so the citizens will be voting on an “idea,” not a business plan.

As I noted previously, this issue has been studied to death by the City. A Community Center has been talked about since the very first City Council (1999-2001). That’s 12 years, for Pete’s Sake. The City has plenty of information with which to make a decision. The Council should be able to make a decision.

But an advisory vote is a classic move by government to delay action and make no decision. When desiring to avoid a decision, create another committee–or go to the voters.

The election Nov. 6. No action of any kind will likely be taken until 2013–if at all, should the public reject this.

This is a a bad idea from the get-to. This is the City Council avoiding its responsibility. How disappointing.

Advisory election for Sammamish Community Center is a dumb idea

Posted on by
4

The idea of having a “non-binding advisory vote” for the Sammamish Community Center is unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

The City Staff and City Council have studied this thing to death. There have been numerous public meetings. Money and time has been spent on professional consultants. Let’s get on with the decision-making. We elect the City Council to make decisions and policy. We don’t need more stalling and needless expense.

If the Council insists on having a vote, at whatever is the cost of doing so, make it mean something by having it binding. Having a non-binding advisory vote is just silly. We already have a Park Commission whose opinions and recommendations are often ignored by City Council. Having a non-binding advisory vote means the prospect is very real that the Council will simply ignore the voters and do what it wants anyway. Save the time and money: show some political courage and backbone and get on with a decision now.

The Taj Mahal community center

Posted on by
Reply

Sammamish has a rather sordid history about the community center.

The very first city council (1999-2001) recognized the need for a community center but it and succeeding councils dithered and dithered.

The councils agreed early on to partner with the Boys and Girls Club to erect a building on 244th Ave. just north of NE8th, but the BGC dithered so long on fund raising that the Lake Washington School District built a school on the site.

The city then dithered in doing a deal with the YMCA for a public-private partnership, despite having a couple of reasonable proposals.

Finally, 10 years after incorporation, the city bought the old library at NE8th and 228th and contracted with the BGC to run the place.

Now we’re looking at the prospect of a community center that will be three times the size of city hall at seven times the cost.

Holy crap! Why so expensive?

In part, there is the desire on the part of some, including the high schools, who want competitive swimming lanes, at a cost of $10m. (But, notably, the schools aren’t willing to step up and write checks, it seems.)

As long as we’re talking about features serving people, this is one use for the pools.