As we reported earlier, the city has paid approximately $375,000.00 in consultants' fees in the brief 8 1/2-month period from January 1, 2001 through August 15, 2001. We ask the community to keep in mind that there's a significant difference between what the city has paid in fees thus far, and what it has spent but not yet paid.

Just for starters, consultants (primarily Berryman & Henigar) were forced to step in as the city's defacto planner for jobs already in the hopper when the last of the planning department cleared the city's halls in May of this year. And the planning department staff was basically induced to leave, either by overt or subtle pressures emanating from the mayor's office.

Acting as temporary city planning staff, consultants' fees totaled $46,570,64 in a 3 1/2-month period. That's about $3,528.08 per week, or $14,112.32 per month, a pretty pricey employee. For purposes of comparison, the $14,112.32 per month paid to consultants compares to the 2001 budget for the entire planning department of $5,880.50 per month. If we extrapolated these fees out over the entire "non-planner" period of 22 weeks, the cost amounts to $77,617.76. Granted this is a non-linear comparison. But considering the fact many of these Berryman & Henigar invoices were for work performed before July, the total amount paid for a consultant to "act" as a city engineer will undoubtedly exceed $77,617,76, which is $7,000 more than the budgeted amount for the entire planning staff for the entire year. Even a first year Economics student could lecture the city on the cost-benefits of attracting and retaining good employees. The costs of training and replacement of staff is prohibitive, a "hidden" expense which does not get recorded in any way as a budget line item, except as it appears in other categories, such as when temporary help is hired, in this case, consultants. One basic rule of thumb is: Temporary help always, always, always costs more.

Total 2001 fees paid to Berryman & Henigar, the city's "favorite" consultant, amounted to $254,517. And despite the obvious advantages of using the more cumbersome but cost-effective RFQ and contract selection process, their services were utilized by the city for nearly everything:

• They were hired to study and offer alternatives for fixing the water treatment plant backwash line, which had been discharging effluent from filtered water (effects of the filter disinfection agent are unknown) into the wetlands and headwaters of Winters Creek for several years. The cost: $26,421.65.
• Work for the various LID's around town virtually bloomed for consultants. The city has thus far (1/1/01-6/19/01) spent $48,018.08 in up-front costs for studying and planning a possible water and sewer LID along 132^nd Street called the "North Wagley LID, costs for which are supposed to be reimbursed by property owners when they develop their properties. If this LID is ever approved to proceed, the city may eventually be reimbursed by the owners in full at some future date. Meanwhile, current taxpayers are paying for it.
• The cost to taxpayers for B&H services for the Industrial Master Plan & LID 97-1 for a 6-month period totaled $83,739.72. Other miscellaneous permit and site review services provided by B&H were for the McDonald's permit, Bethany Terrace, Mayor Rowe's property at the foot of Sultan Basin Road, Bob and Gary Broughton's various properties, Ed "Chico" Boucher's property, and other development projects around town, to the tune of $92,768.00.

An Earth Tech budget of $743,766 for engineering and professional services on the LID-97-1 was fairly well maxed out this year. A U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development contract for $1,501,878.60 is also pretty well depleted (Earth Tech shows as the engineer and Thomco Construction Co., the contractor.)

One thing is clear from this study: The city's growth and development was allowed to get out of control too fast, and it's spending too much on consultant fees in order to do it. These fees are being shouldered by the community.

Awhile back the pro-Rowe, pro-development contingent in town made a big stink about the amount the council approved for an ESA consultant to help us over the rocky shoals of complying with the ESA 4d Rule. The price was $50,000. After looking at what the city spends in consultants' fees on development projects and "redo's" for screw-ups in an 8-month period, I would have to say that that $50K price tag seems like fairly inexpensive "insurance" to make certain we "do it right the first time." (Memory-jogger: Remember the Wagley Creek LID and Willow Run "disasters.")

_______________________________________________________

You can sort and resort these listings. You can resort them to appear by the consultant's name, dollar amount, date, project name, or other header category.

1. Click the blank box/rectangle in the upper left-hand corner of the data/file area, which is located directly above where the row numbers appear. The entire file should show as being "selected," (it will be "highlighted" in black).
2. Then click the "Data" menu item, and then the "sort" sub-menu item. The "Sort by" drop-down window should appear.
3. In the "Sort by" drop-down window, select (click on it) how you would like the file to be sorted; i.e., by invoice number, date, amount paid, etc.
4. Once you have selected a "sort by" item, click the "OK" button.
5. To "deactivate" the highlighting (or selection ) of the file, simply click in any square within any column, row or cell. If you have problems doing this, you can call Loretta at 360-793-6683.
6. KEEP IN MIND: If you ever get into trouble, you can always use the little arrow on the toolbar -- the one curving leftward. This will "undue" any action you have taken and you can begin again. Or, if you REALLY get into trouble, you can simply close the file, and select "NO" when you are asked do you want to save the changes. When you reopen the file, it will be the same as when you opened it the first time.