City maneuvers for planning clout

Stricken with fresh concerns about Kitsap County’s reliability following the departure of Department of Community Development Director Kamuron Gurol, the Port Orchard City Council is attempting to put “teeth” in an agreement that asks the city to pay $60,000 towards the cost of planning possible additions to the city’s Urban Growth Area.

The council met on Tuesday to discuss the contract, which the county wants signed as soon as possible. Despite ongoing confusion over which agency will do what in this joint planning effort, the county went ahead and found a consultant — Seattle-based EDAW, the same firm that was selected to work on revitalizing Port Orchard’s downtown — to do the planning work on the city’s and county’s behalf.

In order for the consultant to get started, however, the city must agree to kick in $60,000 towards the cost of the contract.

This didn’t sit well with the four council members who attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Originally, the proposal from the county was to handle the planning entirely in-house, a plan championed by Gurol.

The cost of a consultant, if one were to be used, was estimated at $50,000 — $10,000 less than the amount Port Orchard is now being asked to pay, pointed out Councilman Todd Cramer.

The new interim DCD director, however, apparently liked the consultant idea better and moved forward with a speed that seemed to take the city by surprise. The sudden change, and the overall progress of the entire planning process — now significantly behind schedule — caused several on the council to question the point of signing any contract with the county.

“It’s hard to get anything done when you’re moving the mark all over,” pointed out Councilwoman Rita DiIenno.

DiIenno supported the idea of having the required agreement with the county look more like a business contract and less like a handshake between jurisdictions. She and Councilman Ron Rider pointed to the typical housebuilding contract as a good form to follow — DiIenno even proposed offering the county a bonus if its planners got done ahead of schedule.

Both said the key was making sure the county only got paid if it was doing what it agreed to do and doing it within the required time limit.

“If we give them the money, there’s no checks and balances on our part,” Rider pointed out.

The issue of staff continuity was also a source of anxiety for the council. Although the interim director’s work philosophy appears to be more in line with the council’s than Gurol’s was, the council members pointed out there was no way of knowing whether she would still have her job a month from now.

In addition, two county commissioners are up for re-election in November, including South Kitsap Commissioner Jan Angel, who has been the planning effort’s strongest proponent.

“If she doesn’t get it, there could be a shift in political philosophies,” said city engineer Larry Curles.

Curles, however, said uncertainty was the reason the council needed to get a contract signed now — before anything else changes.

As Councilman Bob Geiger pointed out, a contract will presumably hold the county to a certain course of action regardless of who’s in command.

Curles proposed giving the city approval rights for each stage of the planning process and making sure that stipulation was included in the contract.

In response to DiIenno’s concerns regarding the fate of the $60,000 should the county find out — per the population allocation projection due out next month — that the city simply won’t need a bigger UGA, Curles also proposed adding termination clauses to the contract that would let the city get its money back.

“If you want the UGA expanded, you’re going to have to play this game,” he pointed out.

In the end, the council asked Mayor Kim Abel to take the list of proposed contract elements to the county and get them included in the draft interlocal agreement. The draft agreement will then come back before the council at its next meeting for discussion and, following that, will be placed on a later council agenda for approval. Despite ever-mounting delays, both DiIenno and Cramer felt it was important for the council to have the opportunity to discuss the agreement without the pressure of immediate approval.

“What’s another month when (the county’s) been dragging their feet for eight, 10 years?” Cramer said.

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.