My question this week. Paul answered, Dave didn’t.
Sure, its cool but . . . is it a good idea to make a sole source deal with Trek to provide bike kiosks for the City of Madison at a cost of $300,000 ($100,000 from this year’s contingent reserve) to the taxpayer in this current economy? Should there have been an RFP, why or why not? Is it appropriate to use money from the contingent reserve?
First some perspective:
Bicycle sharing systems are not new to Madison. After the first modern effort was introduced in the Netherlands in the late 1960’s, Wisconsin’s capital city, as did Paris, followed suit with the yellow bicycle program. This effort of fixing up old bikes and painting them an identifiable color was repeated with the red bicycles found on Madison’s streets in the 1990’s.Since then, a number of more effective programs were introduced in Europe and subsequently the United States.
The fact is, this idea has merit and represents a sensible step forward compared to the earlier bicycle sharing models: The bicycles will be new and well maintained. While not free, the rentals are reasonable and convenient, available to both Madison residents and visitors.
The problem with this is not the idea of bike sharing. Rather, the problem with the Cieslewicz proposal is that it plays fast and loose with a number of reasonable and long-standing checks and balances; it circumvents established budgetary and fiscal practices; and it presents challenges in terms of other values Madisonians hold dear.
We are told that this proposal must be adopted within four weeks of introduction. There will be no bidding on the contract. The funds will come from the contingency reserve fund. There may also be advertising that will violate the Madison sign ordinance and commercial use of the public parks.
Here’s what should happen:
The proposal should be properly referred to City committees. That will allow for discussion of a number of critical issues and the opportunity to get critical questions answered:– The contingent reserve fund is for emergencies –overtime for police and fire and snow removal. Why is this an emergency?
– If the cost of the project is $100,000 for each of three years why shouldn’t the project stand on its own merits and go through the budget process?
– Why wasn’t this proposal put out to bid? Given the number of bicycle sharing programs in the United States and Europe, this is not a single source item. There is absolutely no justification for ignoring the RFP and bidding process simply because this is a last minute proposal.
– Why should the city pay for the program? If a private company is going to use public property to store and lease the bicycles, it seems that they should be paying the city, not the other way around.
– If it is true that the company managing the program is going to rent the space they have on public property, including the parks to advertisers, then we need a public discussion about how extensively we will allow advertising on public property, especially if it violates the billboard ordinance.Every progressive city maintains high ethical standards. We need to discuss the payment of the mayor’s recent trip to Europe by a bicycle industry group particularly now that a member of that group is getting this no bid-contract. We should not have different standards for green industries as opposed to other industries seeking to do business with Madison.
couldn’t agree more, very interesting program…we raised this potential issue at the DCC back in late 09, in reviews of the Platinum Bike process that was stalling…the timing of this is a little “interesting”..meaning
“political”…btw, remember Mr. Burke of Trek hosted a fund raiser for the mayor at his lakefront Manse in Maple Bluff this fall….quid pro quo anyone?
Sounds like “Paul” wants to kill the deal of the century. Probably because it was offered while “Dave’s” at the helm. Ah… politics.
It is a foolish person that tries to beat the horse they’re riding on dead.
The ONLY problem I see with the phenomenal offer Trek has made to Madison is the jealousy that will be felt by Middleton who – through careful research – had already determined that Trek’s B Cycle was the way to go but needed to raise the necessary sponsorship $$$ to compliment the $20K they’d already budgeted (for 2011 via room tax $$) to seed the program. Madison’s been offered one honey of a deal – if they can’t recognize that… Middleton will be PLEASED to sub in for them!!!!
This is a good deal, and although we could kill it with bureaucracy and lots of reviews, lots of meetings, etc., I suspect the only thing we’d ultimately prove is the old conservative canard that government is inherently ossified and seldom works.
Let’s be flexible, step up and use this opportunity. Making it a political football is wrong. Trek isn’t corrupting Madison.
You wanna beat on Dave? Use another issue. Use Edgewater.
I have to agree that use of the contingency fund for this is unwarranted.
Usually when someone rents space owned by others, the renter pays the landlord. Now, if someone wants to have kiosks for fruit slushies in the parks are we going to give them a sweetheart deal, and fatten their wallets with taxpayer’s money set aside for blizzards like the one that will ht us tomorrow?
How do we know that this is a great deal unless it is put out to bid? I am guessing that bike shops who already rent bikes would be interested in bidding on this.
Kitty that is an interesting perspective.
Tweaking it a bit… we might ask whether businesses (in general) will try to benefit from bicycle kiosks.
If you owned a building or a business… would you want a kiosk nearby?
Would the additional pedestrian/rider traffic stimulate sales or rents?
Would those sales/rents generate taxable revenue?
I really think we are focusing on the wrong issues with Dave, with Trek, and with sweetheart deals.
The central issues are:
Will these bikes help people get places?
Will these kiosks catalyze cultural and commercial activity?
From what I can discern, the program is working well in Denver.
Will,
I think what you are saying is that the end justifies the means.
I think the idea is great. I like John Burke – he is a great guy. Trek is a great local company. I hate to think that I am one of those people more concerned with process than a good outcome but I think Soglin is correct.
The proposal has to go through the budget and bidding processes and money should not come from the contigency fund. It simply isn’t appropriate. It is sleazy in fact. The “central issues” like will the bikes get people around and will there be economic growth,would and should be part of the budget process.
These Private-Public partnerships are getting out of hand. Use of City assets and access to the public’s fiscal deep pockets and superior bond ratings for the express purpose of generating benefit to private profit for connected individuals who socialize the normal cost of business is going to bite the City in the butt. Soon cronyism will become the operating model for growth. Then elected and appointed local officials will be working on behalf of the most influential interests. and the Public Trust will be a pleasant bedtime story. If it is that good of an idea, it should attract plenty of private capital. If it is that needed a service, the public would demand the City establish it. Either way the hybrid invites loss of public accountability.