Sunday, May 4, 2014

This Week's Round Up of Ridiculous

Another week, another City Council meeting...And yet another Executive Session to discuss "potential litigation." If this keeps up, they should just add this as a regular agenda item, hmm? There's no dollar amount attached here yet, so...

This week's meeting also includes an increase in the cost of the contract to remodel the Police Department - an increase of $40,000. If passed - and we all know it will be - this will be amendment 3 to this contract. This amendment also extends the time of the contract - which will allow for more time for further increases in the future. As we've discussed here previously, this is how these things work.

Moving right along, we also will see a vote on another $250,000 for the WTIP waterfront park project - this time the area west of Oak Street to the east side of the Valley Creek estuary. Oak Street...Oak Street...Now why is that standing out to me? Oh yes. That's where there's a proposed development, isn't it? And doesn't the development sort of hinge on finding anchor tenants? And isn't the City considering leasing some of the proposed space? And hasn't there been some concern about the realtor for that property - Dan Gase - also being involved with City Council decisions relating to that property? (You know, conflicts of interest and all that kind of stuff...)

Gosh, I think there has been some concern about that. Which makes it perfect that the selection team for choosing Vanir Construction Management, Inc. for this project included Mike Puntenney, Nathan West and...Dan Gase. Thanks for being so tone-deaf, City of Port Angeles. You make us so proud.

Of course, the big ticket item this week is the proposed $13,086,625 contract for dealing with the Garbage Bluff. That's a pretty huge number, but it too is just an appetizer. Port Angeles is paying the cost for decades of dumb decisions. It would be nice if, as those costs mount, the dumb decreased - but I think the jury is still out on that.

As a final note, the City Council is also set to appoint Jerry Dean to their mythical "Ethics Board" this week as well. This despite his giving remarkably listless and uninspiring answers to the remarkably boneheaded and uninspiring questions he had to answer. (Listen to the audio recording and you can hear just how disgusted Sissi Bruch is with both the question she had to ask, and the non-answer she got.)

It'd be nice to think that the "Ethics Board" would perhaps look into the whole conflict of interest thing with Dan Gase, especially since the City seems to be doubling down on it. I don't expect that to happen, of course, but I am very interested to hear what you all have to say about this.


  1. It should be illegal for realtors to serve on city councils. There will ALWAYS be conflicts of interest. In small, backwards and corrupt towns like this, it will be even worse.

  2. So very happy to see the city moving ahead with spending money we don't have on a park we don't need to provide a nice, new ring around our dead downtown. It's great that they're really zeroing in on the essentials, and not dallying around with window dressing.

  3. Dan Gase has wanted to hold elected office for a long time. He is clearly very ambitious in that regard, even though he had to scale-down to "settling" for City Council. (Which was a shoe-in, since he had no opponent. So he's still never actually won an election.)

    But from what I know and have observed, including this Oak St. situation, Gase is much more ambitious than he is ethical or intelligent. Watch for him to aim for higher office again in the future.


  4. Everything you mention here is interrelated. Potential litigation, cost overruns, conflicts of interest - all symptoms of a totally dysfunctional system. Dysfunction that the city council not only allows to happen, but tacitly condones and approves by their utter lack of accountability and/or oversight.

    They have to be hearing some of what we're all shouting about. They have to be aware of how much debt we're all carrying due to their actions. They can't all be missing the obvious conflicts of interest that abound around them. They don't all literally have their heads buried in the sand.

    So I for one am left to surmise that they know, but just don't care. They're in charge, their egos get a charge out of that, and everything else is of secondary importance. Public servants they are NOT.

  5. Another $13 million of debt, piled onto us all. And more on it's way.

    Like with the Cutler-now-Puntenney Turd Tank, the city staff has consistently chosen paths that have led to the most expensive way to deal with the issue.

    Anyone can go to the city archives, and get the first report on the first seawall that was proposed (and built), and read through it. They will see that the project described removing the same garbage that is there now, 30 feet back from the waterline, to allow for the construction of the (stupid) seawall. That entire project, including building the seawall and moving the garbage back 30 feet, cost around $3 million.

    You do the math. What would it then cost to remove the same garbage, from the same site, back 60 feet from the current water line? 100 feet? Oh, and skip building the seawall.

    But, you're right. These people just see an endless series of "projects". The harbor clean up, and storm water are coming along, too.

    There is a section in environmental impact review documents that requires looking at "cumulative impacts". This is what has been lacking. Each of these projects seems to be looked at in a total vacuum. As if it is the only project the citizens will have to be paying for.

    Instead, these costs to the average Joe keep getting increased. The cost of food, the cost of utilities, the costs of insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, etc.. all keep going up (and pretty quickly these days!).

    As an example, the school district looks for increases in it's revenue streams, as it has to find more money to pay for the same increases in utilities, food, etc. The police department also has to pay for increases in daily operating costs. The hospitals. Stores down town.

    Each and all. Each raising where they can, to keep being able to function. But ALL of it comes back to the average citizen.

    Makes the billions of taxpayers money spent on financial bail outs for the big corporations, the subsidies they get, the "foriegn aid" given, the "endless wars", the dozens of military bases we maintain in countries all over the world (does ANY other country do this?) look like money we could use right here, in our own communities!

    Instead, we are told "there is no money", and local governments are left to look for "new ways" to increase taxes. Works out real well. "They" get to continue to do what they want, and we just accept the program, and fight amongst ourselves.

    A highly polarized population. That old " Divide and Conquer" thing. Ya wonder why "the news" is so negative, with the "be afraid" messaging? Did you see the front page PDN story today about the shortages in AMMUNITION, across the US, because people are stockpiling bullets?

    Then, you look at other countries, and see where they spend the tax money collected on their own country, on services for their own people. Free university educations. Free health care. Modern infrastructure. Clean communities. Investments in innovations.

    Those countries rate high in citizens' "happiness", "quality of life", education, health issues, etc. Much higher than the US.

    It could be different. It is, elsewhere.

    1. You're right on the money (literally!) with your comments about the lack of consideration of cumulative impacts. A few years ago, when this garbage bluff was just coming on the Council's radar, the PDN tried to vilify Max Mania for saying that the city needed to look at the big picture/long term impacts of this problem. The PDN tried to make it look like he was proposing the city spend $100 million on it (which he wasn't), and generally tried to make him look bad and the problem not so bad.

      Now here we are, a few years later, and the sort of big picture, holistic approach that Max was advocating for is still lacking, but that's not stopping the city from starting the spending. They may not get to $100 million like the fear mongering fools at the PDN put out there, but they're off to a spendy start regardless.

      It's clear that, at this point, both city staffers and the people who run the PDN have the same vested interest in keeping these expenditures as isolated projects, and the big picture obscure. Once people tumble to the fact that those in charge have been totally derelict in their duty, then both the city and the paper will lose any credibility they have remaining.

      So the happy and oversimplified news keeps coming, as our so-called leaders continue to whistle past the graveyard.

    2. If the city or the newspaper needed credibility to continue...They'd both be at dead stops.

  6. Remember Hanlon's razor. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
    I am a new reader of this blog. Reading through the past blogs and comments from the beginning I see a pattern emerging. Everyone seems to focus on people and how "corrupt" they are. This is ineffective since replacing new people cannot change the basic rules under which they all operate. 1. In City of PA, there is a large permanent staff with its own secret agenda and plenty of time to implement it. (More on this later) 2. We have a “weak mayor” system which means that the council really has only really big crude levers to pull such as replacement of the City Manager, passing a budget, etc. The “details” are easily undermined by the staff agenda. The council, unlike the staff, is temporary, with elections and term limits. 3. The state determines many ground rules. Particularly odious is the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and the way it is implemented in PA. 4. PA has reached a state where many short-term “solutions” are created in desperation by often well-meaning persons and are seen to be what they really are only through 20-20 hindsight. Here I would include Combined Sewage Overflow and the spill barrier at the dump.
    All of the above numbered items are interrelated. Let’s look at “Planning”. Around 1995, the State created the GMA to attempt to initiate regional cooperation for future development (RCW 36.70A). It mandates that each county and city create a Comprehensive Plan (CP) and zoning rules. While GMA itself has problems, I will concentrate on PA’s implementation.
    PA created a Comprehensive Plan that reflected local political realities at the time it was written (under then-planning director Brad Collins). It has changed very little since then except for staff-initiated changes to pave the way for later implementations of the staff’s agenda and/or CP map changes to pave the way for later zoning changes for favored citizens. Today the CP is a mess. It abounds in the kind of language that this blog has criticized in other documents. The CP was on the City’s website, but was not there when I looked a moment ago. I hope it was removed in advance of a complete rewrite, but probably not. It plans for many things that happened in the past, but were never removed. There are pipe dreams that never will happen, and plans that were never acted on. Example: The Route 101 changes, where the planned route was not protected from development and has been developed. Get a copy and read the CP. You will be amazed!
    The 101 route is part of the City staff agenda. Short term, this agenda is being implemented in the totally unnecessary replacement of the Lauridson Blvd bridge over Peabody Creek. Another part is the future interchange from westbound 101 to the Tumwater Truck route. The staff agenda here is to reroute all the trucks out of the politically powerful downtown and put them on Race Street (past the playground) and up to the new bridge (which was widened to accommodate the trucks turning), through a residential neighborhood and past the library and school zone, and then out 101 to the truck route. What a great plan!
    New topic: I recently suggested that the zoning rules be changed as they apply to already existing neighborhoods. The planning staff spends significant time trying to shoehorn newer regulations onto older established neighborhoods. The result is that upgrading homes in these neighborhoods is discouraged by the City. The planning community apparently would prefer that these parts of the City be torn down and rebuilt according to the zoning plan. I was first asked what other cities have modified their zoning in this manner (“We need a precedent”.). When I provided one precedent, I was basically assured that the proposal would be studied to death. OK, I’m not into shoveling sand against the tide.
    I have other examples, but this reply is already too long. Thanks for reading.

    1. Hi Len, and thanks for the detailed comments.

      I agree with the first three of your points, though I will disagree - on a case by case basis - about the "solutions" being put forth by well-meaning persons. (Though you yourself qualify it with "often," so maybe I don't disagree with you as much as I think...) In my view, there are very much some bad actors in City Hall who truly are just destructive.

      Anyway, I think the outdated, if not missing in action, nature of the Comprehensive Plan is a crucial - THE crucial - piece of the puzzle. Simply put, the City of Port Angeles has no plan, master or otherwise. Projects come and go, with little thought as to goals or how these various projects fit together - or don't. There's nothing comprehensive about the way the City conducts its business.

      Being that you sound very knowledgeable and interested in this, please feel free to respond with your other examples. Long replies are just fine, especially when they're as thoughtful as yours.

    2. Since the Comprehensive Plan was written under the watch of Brad Collins, and since it is woefully out of date, it would make a certain amount of sense for him to lead the effort to update it.

      But Brad's no leader. No one on this Council is. They're all content to preen and let staff lead THEM around by their noses. Meanwhile, the city continues its not-so-slow slide into economic, environmental and ethical (Hi, Dan Gase!) oblivion.

    3. Speaking of comprehensive planning...Doesn't moving the garbage back just a bit from the bluff amount to creating a problem for a future City Council, since those darn waves will continue to erode the shoreline for years to come? Isn't this "solution" really just a way of passing the buck? Didn't the city already "solve" this problem years ago by building that damned stupid wall? Are we learning anything yet?

  7. I have long complained about the weak mayor form of government, and been met with blank stares. And, I remember all the PDN articles about the "new 101" . I remember (in the last 20 years) of creating a bypass (linking E Lauridson to the other fraction of E. Lauridson, over White Creek, and then 101 -- that involved bulldozing a few homes, I don't remember where it was supposed to re-connect, but seem to remember that it was somewhere AFTER the big S curve (which makes sense if you look at the new underpass being built). Second proposal was a bypass on Scrivner Road to Deer traffic would be routed up and around most of the town. Both ideas make even more sense why we don't have jersey barriers on the big ugly S curve. And, it is in keeping with the bits being put into place now -- the Lauridson bridge AND the underpass at Deer Park AND the widening of the rest of 101 between Sequim and Port Angeles AND the Sequim bypass.
    I remember all these various things, and the big, nasty "master plan" is something I've only heard about. I don't remember it being on the city website...ever.
    Len, very nice comments. Thanks

    1. Also please note that the city did a piss poor job of notifying the people who live along the "new truck bypass" of the change. Once again, the city's "fix" doesn't fix anything - it just moves the problem around. It's like a little kid who doesn't want to eat their vegetables swirling them around on the plate then saying "All done!"

    2. Your memory is better than most. Some of the things I have heard are: 1.The "big ugly S curve" exists because the owner of Traylor's Restaurant was a state senator. When the road went through he didn't want his place bypassed. 2.The original road plan down Lauridson was to connect with the Heart of the Hills Parkway from 101 up past the Park headquarters. 3.Since the route was not protected, Lauridson was developed, and cannot ever be reclaimed because of prominent citizens who live there.
      4. The bypass route (City people NEVER use the "B" word) down Scrivner and Scribner Roads was a great idea until someone realized that it would take an Act of Congress (literally) to build a road through the National Park to connect with westbound 101. Oops!
      So the "current plan" ( this from a member of the planning department) is to use Race Street until the final route is built on the right-of-way owned by Bonneville Power for their lines coming in from the east, then down Mount Angeles Road to the new bridge, and then out Lauridson past the residential neighborhood, library and school zone to 101 westbound. This last alternative was not mentioned in the CP, the last time I looked, but all the earlier plans were alluded to in one section or another.
      In 1999, when the DOT was planning the Heart of the Hills Parkway, they held public meetings in PA and compiled a list of the considerations people wanted taken into account in choosing between the three competing DOT proposals. Note that the public were not asked for alternative proposals, but only what public concerns to consider in making a choice. The meetings ended abruptly when a state tax referendum passed and the Parkway idea was abandoned,.
      I have a copy of the information relating to these meetings and what was discussed and proposed in them that I got from one of the original participants. This information is very relevant to consideration of any 101 route proposals even today. There was, at one point, a proposal presented to the city to build a tunnel under the National Park so that the bypass could be build without interfering with the Park. I don't think it went anywhere. The last meetings I am aware of on the 101 topic were at the PA Forward (formerly Downtown Forward) organization. This is another of these quasi City groups that the Council sometimes puts together so people can vent. As far as I know, it went nowhere either. It is my understanding that certain City Staff were not happy that PA Forward was even considering this issue because proposals on roads and highways should come from the staff, rather than from citizens.

    3. I've heard the Traylor's story as well, and it doesn't surprise me. I wonder who is benefiting from the (totally unnecessary) widening of 101 right now.

      As for the BPA right of way bypass route (there's a mouthful for you), I've also heard of it for years, and wonder why oh why the City hasn't just pushed for that, rather than these half-measure, supposedly temporary workarounds that it pushes instead. Obviously, dealing with the BPA and getting this idea approved, funded, built, etc. is quite an undertaking, but as a route and a real solution, it makes sense to me, so why not go for the best plan first?

      Well, other than that this is Port Angeles we're talking about. Obviously we're not known for embracing the best or most informed plans for public works projects, are we?

      And I'm just ever so sorry to hear that City staff members don't like ideas coming from us peons. My, how uppity of us. Just because we live here doesn't mean we have any pertinent knowledge or experience that might, you know, be useful. Right? So I do hereby promise to defer to my betters on staff. After all, they've done SUCH a good job of making this the thriving, cutting-edge and competitive town it is.

      Put another way: Are we seeing a flood of tech firms moving here yet, Nathan?

    4. Yes the Traylor is correct. Bill Traylor owned the Orbit (I think) restaurant. He got wind of the new bypass from Del Guzzi construction (Jack and Bruno) who did 99.9% of the work here.
      So Bill became a state senator then got onto the transportation board and the rest is history. Oh by the way Del Guzzi built and financed the Traylors that we see today. Another ummmmmmmm moment in the analogs of PA history.

    5. Rumor has it that Sam Haguewood, owner of what is now the Crab House at the Red Lion, also greatly assisted in quashing the bypass route. While he was on the city council, Sam helped hatch a number of such boneheaded and self-serving schemes. Son Jim comes by it naturally.

    6. Several years ago I put together a proposal for an alternate route for 101 that (being perfectly impartial, of course) I believe to be far better and far more in sync with the wishes of the people from the 1999 meetings. Of course, my plan was received with overwhelming indifference. I still have the package but nobody wants to see it, and like I said earlier, I am not into shoveling sand against the tide.

      BTW. I am surprised at the high percentage of "Anonymous" replies and comments in this blog. C'mon, people. Stand up and be counted!

  8. I don't think we can over look the power and influence of the "Insider Culture of City Hall".

    Anyone who spends time in the offices of any governmental department quickly see and understand the view the staff get of their roles. They know that elected people come and go. They know the public come and go. But THEY are there, through thick and thin. THEY know what REALLY is going on. THEY know how things REALLY get done.

    They view everyone else with a certain distain and smugness.

    This perspective of the public gets picked up by a lot of those elected to various offices, including City Council. THEY know what is REALLY going on. THEY are privy to details the public are not. Etc, etc, etc..,

    So, it isn't that they don't know how the public feels. They just grow to think they know better than those that elect them. They're part of the "inside crowd", and the public is not.

    1. Now I see that City Manager Dan McKeen is requesting that the City Council give him the ability to spend nearly two million dollars on his own for the landfill bluff project, citing the need to be able to respond quickly in this situation. Spending that high has always had to be approved by Council before.

      One: This sets a precedent for future staff power grabs/Council dereliction of duties.

      Two: It's the Council's job to vote on spending for these things. If time is an issue, then they need to call special meetings ASAP and deal with their job themselves.

      The need for speed should not wipe out all other considerations. If it does, expect to hear that argument used again in the future.

    2. Outrageous! The council should NEVER give the City Manager sole authority to approve change orders in amounts over $25,000.
      This exposes the sad truth that everyone involved in awarding city contracts intends to reward and over-compensate low-ball bidders.
      People: It's time to pack the council meeting tomorrow night and DEMAND that our elected officials NOT approve this blatant attempt to shift even more spending power to staff.

    3. I would show up, but I'm out of town for a week or more.

      Will be interesting to see if ANYBODY gets off their asses, and shows up.

      Otherwise, what message are we sending to our "leadership"? That we're happy to bitch and moan online, but can't be bothered to actually do ANYTHING?

      They count on their past experience.

    4. It's really just laziness on the part of the City Council. If they can't be bothered to call a special meeting (and show up) when a pressing issue requires the expenditure of BIG DOLLARS, then why do they show up at all? This is their JOB, supposedly. "Delegating" their authority to Dan McKeen is a very, very bad idea. As mentioned above, it sets a precedent. It also gives this Council (and future Councils) an out when this all goes wrong. "Well, WE didn't vote on it - the City Manager did it!"

      Stupid, shifty and pathetic - that's our city government.

    5. We have the community we create, and the government we allow.

    6. Speaking of Dan McKeen delegating dollars . . . if you recall last November - the Council elected to take away $20,000 from the Downtown Association which the City has been paying each year to help participate in the Main Street program. Enough people had complained and written objections about our worthless Downtown Assc. - the Council pulled the money. So what did Dan McKeen and Nathan do in December? Through the backdoor, they gave the Downtown Assc. $20,000 via the B&O Tax Credit program. The Council had just made a value judgement about the work of PADA, only to have Dan and Nathan essentially reverse their action the next month. Apparently, Council members were OK with this turn of events. When Dan and Nathan were confronted with this action, Dan trumpeted this whole notion that the City is looking for "strong return on investment" and that he was going to hold the Downtown Assc. accountable for the $20,000 he just gave them. Yeah, right Dan . . . spoken like someone who doesn't have a handle on what's really taking place downtown . . so lets continue to reward bad performance.

  9. The notion of this city having an ethics board is laughable. The fact that Dan Gase, who is clearly deep in a conflict of interest, as stated, will be voting on members of such a board is equally laughable.

    The city government knows they have to occasionally try to make some motions of following best management practices, business ethics, etc. But their efforts are always short-lived, half-hearted and sources of MORE public dissatisfaction, not less.

    1. Gase seems like our version of Jack Horner....with his fingers in a lot of pies. "my what a good boy am I"

  10. Per your little conflict of interest chart, I can see at least two (financial, professional) areas of concern for Dan Gase.

    Or should I say, areas of concern concerning Dan Gase, since he himself doesn't seem to be concerned at all. Nor apparently do any of his fellow Council members, the city manager, or the city attorney. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - but follow the money!

  11. All this work and expenditure on the WTIP BS is really the wrong thing at the wrong time. Building more parks when the city lets the parks it already has go unattended and unmaintained. Focusing on the waterfront when right next door downtown is crumbling, becoming a sinkhole of broken dreams. And spending so much money to build a new beach in an era of climate change and rising and strengthening tides is just insanity. It's like pouring a bunch of money onto the shoreline and just waiting for the waves to wash it away.

    If redoing the comprehensive plan would help stop this sort of unproductive behavior by the city, I'm all for it. But whatever happens with the CP, this insanity needs to stop, before the town is a hollowed out shell, waiting for the waves to wash it away, too.

  12. Speaking of ridiculous...I see the other blog has become a forum for bashing the Port O Call and trans people who attend Esprit here. Off topic, yes, but it does strike me as ridiculously stupid, and hardly helpful to the efforts to make Port Angeles a better, more progressive and responsible community. So thanks for staying positive, CK, even if some of us do go off topic sometimes...;)

    1. Tom Harper is clearly more than a little confused about being a "liberal" or "progressive." While all are welcome here - and encouraged to participate - this is a forum with a progressive perspective. I weed out the trolls and try to keep the focus on issues relating to sustainability, financial responsibility, truth, justice and all that stuff.

      PAU is intended as a real community forum - but it will never be simply a forum for cranks and trolls to display their bigotry and ignorance. If there's anything locally that needs tearing down, it's our dysfunctional and unresponsive governmental entities, not truly local news sources or visitors to Port Angeles, both of which actually add value to our community.

    2. CK, you must have needed that extra cup of coffee this morning....that last sentence is clearly two related, but different thoughts.

    3. It's funny that you'd make that comment today, since this morning I tried a new decaf - and found it wanting.

    4. More homophobic hate speech posted on Tom Harper's blog. More ugly, rambling bigotry - Tom's stock in trade. Pathetic.

    5. If you've ever met Tom Harper, then you know he's not the most intelligent or well informed person around. He'll tell you that his blog is a positive thing for the community, but then he encourages and enables the bigots who gravitate there. Which, needless to say, isn't a good thing for the community. There IS a difference between encouraging free speech and enabling hate speech. But Tom obviously can't tell the difference.

    6. Tom might do better if he got out of bed before noon. But the truth is, he's lazy. I don't think he's realized that the world has left his little blog behind. Well, except for the trolls and the bigots. They still drop by, since Tom will accommodate them.

    7. To give credit where credit is due, Tom Harper is right about one thing. There's no competition between these blogs. CK hosts a place for an actual exchange of ideas and information, as well as some venting of frustrations. Tom Harper hosts a place for BBC to talk about his lawnmower, and for Tom to indulge his obsession with Max Mania.

      So, you're right, Tom. There is no competition. No comparison either.

    8. Tom's not necessarily lazy. What I see is a rich, spoiled Californian transplant who literally bought a building downtown to play with, and who doesn't have to work. He sees his dabbling in his blog as "community service."

      If you can afford to buy a whole downtown building (even in Port Angeles) then you're obviously well enough off to probably be disconnected from the day-to-day reality that most of us live in. Tom Harper doesn't have to get up early and go to work; most of us do. Tom Harper doesn't have to worry about being fired or harassed because he's queer; those of us who are queer do, especially in places like Clallam County. Tom Harper doesn't do his community any service by allowing his blog to be a forum for hate. But then again, tucked away with his money in his apartment building, how connected is he to the community, really?

    9. Alright then, I think we get it. Tom's a little confused. Believe me, I get it.

      First he was supportive of this blog. Then he took to calling me a "gutless ball-less coward." Then he said I was Max Mania (whom he clearly has a thing for). Then, to bring it full circle, he's back to saying "the more (local blogs) the merrier." In other words - Huh?

      So there seems no need to belabor the point any further, unless you really, really want to. Tom's erratic behavior speaks volumes for him.

  13. Are we seeing that "urgency statement" being used by CITY STAFF, once again, to get the Council and public to go along with staffs' predetermined plan? " Vote for this, because we don't have time. This has to happen now, or else.."

    Haven't we been down this path before?

    1. Just about anything could be considered "urgent," if you frame it correctly. It's even easier if you wait a bit before telling them about it, and run the clock down a little bit. Them just add City Council and, voila! It's urgent!

    2. Funny how the State thought the CSO problem was "urgent," but the City dithered. Many of us thought that the old dump threatening to fall into the strait was pretty urgent, but the City waited on that, too.

      Kind of makes you wonder...But so many things here do.