One development had the potential to cause the paper some discomfort. In early August, MWH hired accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to review Kessler’s findings, and by August 21 had submitted to the city auditor the auditing company’s assessment that “almost all of the assertions raised by Kessler are unfounded.” ^[5] Whereas Kessler had stated that the city had been uncooperative in providing him with documents, the new audit contended that “Kessler received all of the information it requested within weeks of its first request.” It continued:

Kessler’s request for additional materials such as cancelled contractor checks and raw salary and benefit information for MWHC [MWH Constructors] personnel is not typically the type of underlying data either requested or provided in an audit of this nature. ^[6]

The PricewaterhouseCoopers document raised questions about Kessler’s credibility, as did several users on news-press.com forums. Warren notes:

Some people think the guy really knows what he’s talking about. Some people think he took a bunch of shortcuts, blamed a bunch of things on the actors that he was evaluating and got... out of town and wasn’t really fair.

But the newspaper had to take into account that the new charges against Kessler were being leveled by a firm retained by MWH. It was difficult to know whether the results invalidated Kessler’s allegations.

On August 25, Cape Coral Assistant City Auditor Alan Bray, who had been Kessler’s contact when the latter conducted his own audit, resigned, claiming the City Council blamed him for Kessler’s unfavorable findings and that he lacked support from his superiors. On August 27, the News-Press and news-press.com hosted a town hall meeting, bringing together residents and city officials to discuss the utility expansion. News-press.com provided constant updates as the meeting progressed.

City Manager Terry Stewart found the exercise redundant. The City Council had hosted its own town-hall style meeting three weeks before, on August 2, to answer residents’ questions about the Kessler audit. ^[7] “We were there for over six hours,” Stewart says. “We had a set format. You have a question... you write it down. You turn it in. And we’ll stay here and answer every question that is turned in.” ^[8]

The News-Press town hall meeting dispensed with written questions in favor of a less regulated format, allowing participants to raise questions verbally. An editorial in the News-Press the following day deemed the meeting a success. “We succeeded in getting Cape city leaders to face 200 residents to hear and respond to raw questions and comments from nearly three dozen of them,” wrote Community Conversations Editor David Plazas. ^[9] “We succeeded in keeping this issue alive and keeping the pressure on those in power to pay attention to taxpayers’ concerns.” ^[10]

On August 28, the City Council voted 7-0 to cut residents’ assessments by $2,000 per lot, $4,000 for a typical two-lot home site. (One councilman was absent for health reasons.) Some of the savings would come from installing irrigation and drinking water lines on the same side of the road, rather than on opposite sides according to earlier practice. Doing so would reduce reconstruction costs. The fee for hooking up to the new pipes, however, would rise—though City Manager Terry Stewart assured residents that this increased cost would be less than the assessment savings. Residents continued to complain to the paper, however, that the savings were not enough.

Throughout this period, site traffic on news-press.com rose tremendously. Executive Editor Marymont told Wired magazine’s Jeff Howe that the website received more visits than “ever before, excepting hurricanes.” ^[11]

A survey the city conducted in October 2006 indicated that residents’ ire over the utility project could impact their support for other government initiatives. ^[12] At stake was a referendum about whether to allow the city to issue $110 million in bonds for a new public safety building. In April 2007, the measure was overwhelmingly defeated, with 78 percent voting against it. ^[13] Reporter Ruane points to several problems with the referendum, including the lack of an alternative plan, but notes that the distrust of the city government created by the utility expansion project played a significant role in the measure’s defeat. ^[14]

In June 2007, over a year after the News-Press began its investigation, residents in the next utility construction area received their assessments. The construction and connection fees were now much lower, in general less than $14,000. ^[15] Accounts differ as to why this happened. Cape Coral Bureau Chief Hayden argues that the News-Press investigation, and the public outcry it generated, rendered the City Council more sensitive to residents’ financial concerns, but that changing material costs also played a part in the cost reduction. City Manager Terry Stewart maintains that varying levels of subsurface rock in different parts of the city had more of an impact on the assessments than did the News-Press investigation.

In November 2007, Cape Coral voters changed the character of the City Council. Three members who supported the utility expansion project left the council because of term limits; voters meanwhile replaced two more utility expansion supporters. One new councilmember had sued the city over the fairness of the assessment method. “I can’t prove it,” Ruane remarks, “but I believe our crowdsourcing created enough uproar to influence the election.” ^[16]