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.