As part of my legwork for Friday's editorial on Boise City Hall's streetcar public outreach contract, I posed a list of questions to Adam Park, Mayor Dave Bieter's spokesman.

Because Park's answers are pretty detailed — and because of the controversy surrounding the streetcar contract — I thought it would be useful to post the questions and Park's responses in full:

1. Considering the city's well-documented budget challenges, how does the city justify the $90,000 expenditure on a public relations contract?

Mayor Bieter considers the Boise Streetcar System to be an investment in Boise’s future that will pay for itself through increased development, improved transportation and better air quality. That investment cannot and should not be made until the public is properly informed about the project and has provided their feedback. Public outreach is a critical aspect of this and every other major public project.
Funding for the contract would come from the economic development fund, which comes from lease money received by Union Pacific for the use of the City’s rail property for storage of rail cars. No direct tax payer money would be used.
It is important to note that this RFP was for “up to” $90,000, of which only $50,000 was scoped to be spent on the project over the next six months, with the other $40,000 to be held in reserve should the project require additional work into next year. As council members indicated on Tuesday, they prefer a staged approach to the allocation.

2. Why is it necessary to hire outside staff for this kind of initiative (and, the outreach campaign for the new trash and recycling service), as
opposed to using in-house staff?

The City does not maintain sufficient public information staff or expertise to undertake a public outreach campaign on the magnitude required for the streetcar or Curb It campaigns. If it did, this staff would sit idle between projects and be a waste of public money. Government agencies on every level rely on outside consultants to facilitate public outreach on an as-needed basis so that taxpayer money isn’t wasted in the long-term.

3. On his blog, Dave Frazier has questioned the contract's legality. How
does the city respond? Even if legal, is it appropriate to spend taxpayer
dollars on something that smacks of an advocacy campaign?

The City Attorney’s Office has explored this issue and determined this potential outreach effort to be legal. It’s important to be mindful with the term “advocacy” in respect to this contract because it implies intent to use aggressive marketing techniques to sway public opinion. That is not the goal of this contract. The aim of this public outreach effort is to provide current, accurate information on the Boise Streetcar System for the public and gather their feedback – very similar to the materials presented at the recent Boise Streetcar Open House on October 1 or to past outreach events for Communities in Motion, the Downtown Mobility Study, the Multimodal Center or any transportation improvement open houses. It is unfair to characterize any future outreach as “advocacy” before any elements of that outreach have been created.

4. The controversy surrounding the streetcar contract centers on cost, and the use of taxpayer dollars on such a project. Doesn't a taxpayer-funded
advocacy campaign risk further public backlash?

As the City Council indicated at last night’s meeting, a staged approach for the public outreach may be more appropriate than approval of a single amount to fund all outreach in the pre-construction period.

5. Why was this item placed on the city's consent agenda?

The council rules call for all purchasing items to be placed on the consent agenda. This saves time by allowing the Council or the public at the meeting to pull off the issues they would like to discuss while not spending unnecessary time on issues that don’t require further conversation. It should be noted that all City Council members carefully read every item on consent and regularly pull individual items during meetings if they merit further discussion. Also, any citizen can request a consent agenda item be pulled for further discussion.
Moreover, a key portion of this proposal, approving budget authority for the expenditure, was not on the consent agenda but rather listed as a separate item for Council discussion and vote on the Council’s work session agenda, which was posted publicly last Friday. Any suggestion that there was an attempt to hide this proposal ignores the facts. As it turned out, the Council voted to table the budget authorization, which made the consent agenda items moot.

6. Some have questioned the recommendation to hire Cronin and Associates, given Brian Cronin's work on Mayor Bieter's 2003 campaign. What is the city's response? What is Mayor Bieter's role ‹ direct or indirect ‹ in the selection of this contractor?

Mayor Bieter had no role in the recommendation for Cronin & Associates to be awarded this contract. This recommendation was awarded solely on the merits of the Cronin & Associates proposal. Mayor Bieter did not review the bids and had no role in the process or the recommendation of Cronin. The Mayor was not present at the October 6 City Council meeting in which the contract was discussed.