Bond sale passes in ML council

Money for long-awaited maintenance facility given green light, though not all are happy

MOSES LAKE — Amid accusations of conflict of interest and of hurried decision-making, the city might just get itself a new facility for its maintenance departments.

On Tuesday night, the Moses Lake City Council approved by a vote of 5-2 the sale of more than $7 million in bonds for the construction of the building at the Moses Lake Airport.

Councilman Steve Shinn voted against the sale, in part because he said fellow council member Richard Pearce had a conflict of interest regarding the bonds.

Pearce refuted the accusations, saying that there was no such thing as a conflict of interest in building a maintenance facility at the Moses Lake Airport, where he has a hangar, and where an unpaved road runs by it.

According to Shinn's letter to council, the Herald and state authorities, building the facility would require the paving of the road; a benefit to Pearce, which it said was forbidden by the Revised Code of Washington.

The RCW 42.23.030 states that no municipal officer shall be beneficially interested in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such officer.

While Moses Lake City Manager Joe Gavinski called the accusations a non-issue, Pearce discarded them saying that the bond was to build a maintenance facility and there was no plan to pave a road that goes by his hangar.

Furthermore, he said the office of the State Attorney General and the State Assessor deal with situations like these all the time on the west side of the state, with public officials leasing boat slips.

"I pay $350 a year for the lease of the ground on my hangar," he said. "And the state assessor does not seem to have a problem with it."

Pearce said he had never talked to people from either office but he had knowledge of the city attorney, Jim Whitaker talking to them.

Pearce said that Shinn's accusations of conflict of interest were just an instrument that he had been used "to get me removed from city council.

"At the last meeting he tried to use them as an instrument to keep me from voting on this bond," he said.

Although he said he was not surprised by the accusation, Pearce said he was disappointed that Shinn would use it as a tool and that Shinn would not let "the democratic process take its course."

He added that he was surprised Shinn would bring the issue up to keep him from voting on the bond, because "it was going to pass anyway."

Pass, it did, by a vote of 5-2, with Shinn and councilman Lee Blackwell voting against it.

Pearce and Gavinski said that the city desperately needed a new maintenance facility to replace the existing one on Penn Street, where the city keeps its water and sewer equipment, and an office for the various people who work in those departments.

Things like sand and gravel are also kept there, he said.

Blackwell said he voted against it because one of the things the bond does is tie up funds from water and sewer. He called the decision to pass the bond a premature one.

Shinn agreed, saying the conflict of interest issue was only part of his decision to vote against.

"It's too early to sell the bonds," he said. "We did not do a thorough review of the sewer funds."

The conflict of interest part of it, Shinn said, is due to Pearce promoting the move of the facility to the airport. However, his main concern, he said, was what he saw as the rate payers not getting a fair shake.

"Staff recommended that 50 percent be charged to the water and sewer fund," he said. "That's not fair to water and sewer users."

Blackwell stated his reasons for his vote against, saying that they were not related to a possible conflict of interest.

"My decisions were different than councilman Shinn," he said. "We don't have a plan that I have seen that convinces me that we need $7 million, or a plan that says how much we need or what the building will be used for."

He added, "It has not been planned out," stating that although the interest rate may be reasonable, the city will not be in a position to spend the money for a year at last, all the while paying interest on it.

He called having the bond without planning "frustrating."

Gavinski said the council did in fact have all the info it would need to make that decision.

"I am not going to argue with a councilman," he said. "but staff provided the information that council wanted."

Furthermore, Gavinski said that in his letter, Shinn had stated that he also believed the new facility to be necessary.