WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business

'We'll know the price of water when the well runs dry' - Ben Franklin
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.

It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.

Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.

Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.

Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.

Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!

You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!

Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.

The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.

It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.

Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.

Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.

Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!

OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.

Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.

And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.

Who were these leaders, you might ask?

They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.

Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.

Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.

Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.

So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.

That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.

What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.

But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------

Waterfront Redevelopment: Economic Development on Steroids

'It's never over, until its over.' - Casey Stengel
---------------------------------------
Back in September of 2006, I decided to e-mail County Council member Ward Nelson, hoping to build a dialogue with him to help lead to the County's support of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] State legislation that had just been sponsored by Representative Kelli Linville, and passed to include Bellingham as one of its initial Pilot Projects.

This new bill to include Bellingham in what amounts to 'tax-increment financing' was seen as a real boon, happening just at the time when financing help - at least the enabling of it - was most needed, as the Port and City proceeded in a good faith effort to redevelop our degraded industrial waterfront.
--------------------
Please give me a call at my home phone xxx before noon tomorrow, or over the weekend at xxx, if convenient.
Otherwise, I'll be back next Monday, Sep 25, for our next City Council meeting.

I asked Ward to call me to discuss LIFT and how the might agree to use that tool to support the ambitious waterfront redevelopment effort being undertaken to stimulate economic development, clean up a polluted industrial area and provide better public access to Bellingham Bay.

I had been very encouraged by reading the Economics section of the County's Comprehensive Plan [at the URL shown below] because the Waterfront Redevelopment seemed to be tailor-made to qualify for substantial Economic Development Incentives [EDI]. Because of the enormous potential for assisting the entire region, I also thought there was a good chance the County would agree to use its LIFT potential, just as the City and the Port of Bellingham had quickly decided to do.

Unfortunately, it turned out I was wrong in this assumption.
And, I was also wrong about the County making available any EDI funds either.
Neither has happened -at least up to now- despite the fact that the Waterfront Redevelopment project clearly qualifies for strong financial assistance by the County's own Comp Plan!
But at the time, I wanted to ask, at least to get an explanation.

http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/2005/2005%20January%20Comp%20Plan%20-%20.pdf%20with%20.jpg%20maps/k%20Chapter%207%20-%20Economics/Chapter%207-Economics.pdf
----------------------------
The County seems so far ahead of the City in defining its role in economic development, if for no other reason than it has its own written and approved Comp Plan Element specific to Economic Development.
It has been my goal for a few years to have the City develop such an ED Element, which would ideally fit into and support the County's overall vision.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient City Council support for this idea to make this happen, and draft Strategic Guidelines are now being developed.
But, the waterfront redevelopment effort can't wait for that to happen.

If you read the County's Comp Plan, Chapter 7 on Economics, plus the supporting information in Appendix 'C' regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan, these ideas and goals strongly support a major redevelopment just like the waterfront project, which the Port of Bellingham and the City have committed to make happen.

It certainly sounded that way enough to allow the County to support the Market Depot Square project with over $200 k inEDI funding last year.
That was a big help, and the success of that venture has paid off from the moment the facility was opened!

In similar fashion the County's commitment to the Public Facilities District over 5 years ago has greatly assisted that effort,
Unlike the PFD rebates of a portion of sales taxes already paid, a LIFT commitment doesn't identify existing County funds, because that money is never available UNLESS the actually development occurs.
The tax increment in question is associated only with new development within the geographic boundary defined as part of Waterfront Redevelopment
No development, no new taxes.
It's that simple.

Maybe it was a problem to get support for the new, innovative LIFT funding promises because the concept was so new it wasn't understood sufficiently.
Or, maybe becasuse the Waterfront Redevelopment is so much bigger [by orders of magnitude], takes much more time to occur. and seems so much less certain, that the County was hesistant for these reasons?

But, maybe because the Waterfront Redevelopment is so ambitious, and so strongly supports the concept of sustainability by cleaning up a contaminated urban site to a higher than industrial standard, and requires such a large clean-up of a blighted area to become the valuable magnet for business, recreation and residential use, that it requires a whole new way of evaluating its potential than the County is currently able to do.

If that is the case, then maybe we ought to try a different approach, with fresh eyes and ideas, with new dialogue?

In an exercise last year, 75 community leaders focused on the concept of looking at this redevelopment as essentially designing an entire new neighborhood, and concluded it was a cinch to achieve the highest LEED standards, without much extra effort!

What a boon to Whatcom County that would be!
Just the improved public access to the Bay would be a major attraction.
But that's just the topping on the sundae.
Cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway, the former G-P site -including the ASB-, remediating 2 or 3 former City Landfills, plus other industrial property is a huge beneficial accomplishment!
Cleaning it up to a higher standard than usual just adds multiple bonuses to it.
Using the cleaned up areas for institutions of higher learning, water-dependent uses, businesses and housing not only helps the economics, but it helps the City and County fulfill their Growth Management goals.

Now, that suite of desirable outcomes certainly deserves some very special consideration in my book.
And it also reemphasizes that we really need the County to help us make this happen!

The beauty of the new LIFT legislation is that Bellingham has the absolute inside track to be the first city in the State of Washington that is ready to take advantage of it.
A few larger Cities have used LIFT type financing for special projects before, and with success.
Now that this instrument has been made available to smaller municipalities for qualified projects, it behooves us to take full advantage of it.

Opportunities to become a guinea pig like this are rare, although the potential LIFT pay-off of up to $1 million per year for 25 years is even more rare.
Now, $25 million is a lot of money, but it is only a fraction of what the Port and City will need to invest to make the redevelopment happen over the next 5 years.

But, once it does happen, the pay-off to County, Port and City will be enormous!
And it will be ongoing, literally for many, many year into the future.

That prospect excites me, but it also presents a huge challenge that cannot be escaped.

As you & I know, investments with higher risks are necessary to earn higher returns and rewards.
It does take money to make money, even if the investors are public entities.

As the principal entity under State Law, the County has a major responsibility to consider this redevelopment effort as much a County priority as it is a Port or City priority.
The major difference is the County's investment through LIFT is without the same order of risk as the City and Port will bear.

The Port's mission is focused almost totally on economic development, and they are out there and exposed on this major undertaking.
Fortunately, their pro forma calculations demonstrate their investment can be mad to pay-off in a reasonable length of time.

The City also appears highly leveraged at this point, but must provide some level of infrastructure, services and regulations to support this undertaking with the Port as partner.
The City's pro forma is currently less certain than the Port's, and can use whatever level of County support that can be provided.

These two jurisdictions are literally joined at the hip for the duration of this effort, and that's not all bad, because inter-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to achieve regional goals.

The County's help could make the difference as to whether this ambitious undertaking will succeed or fail.
And be assured a failure would help no one!

It will take real, dedicated leadership from every jurisdiction to see this redevelopment through to completion.
I for one, believe the County is willing to help, provided a method can be found to satisfy its legitimate concerns.

So, I invite the County into a new dialogue about how we can best work together make this Waterfront Redevelopment happen with better equity and more certainty.
--------------------------
I've had some reflections on this present situation, and come to the conclusion the County's reasoning wasn't necessarily shortsighted or flawed.
Here's why:

The County has a history of being very careful about raising its taxes.
The last 12 years have seen no voluntary increase in property tax, and only two increases in sales tax that I recall.
One property tax increase occurred at the time I-695 passed, and helped the City restore substantial losses to its General Fund funding.
The other happened more recently and was focused on public safety and the criminal justice funding.
There may have been other County tax events that I have missed, but they have not been notable in comparison to the ones cited above.
This is a remarkable record of remaining fiscally prudent, despite some glaring needs in the County that remain unaddressed.

With this history in mind, I concluded the County is justified in thinking very carefully about committing ALL its potential property taxes for the Waterfront Redevelopment for the full 25 years, without further information.

For example, if the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds far beyond expectations, that would leave the County ]with funding more than they estimated.
That possibility can be addressed and rectified.

Perhaps, a certain monetary amount over a shorter period of time is preferable for the County.
In that case EDI money might be easier to make available, perhaps even in installments.
If what we need is more certainty regarding the time value of money, then a table of present values could be prepared to allow some choices in amounts and their timing.
Any amount can be raised in many different ways to benefit this, or any other, project.

Recalling the projected cash flow charts the Port presented, it may be more beneficial to our purposes to have the County front-load its contributions and let this fund critical early work.
Like the famous EMILY's list. [Early Money Is Like Yeast]

The time value of early investment grows over time whether additional monies are added or not.
Recall that the County accepted City REET money to build the interim jail, then agreed to credit the City with over 3 times the present monetary value in credits toward the City's obligation in future operating costs.
That was a creative solution that benefited both parties.

Considering this method of calculating value to the redevelopment costs would be extremely helpful to the City in this instance.
Early money would really help -out of proportion to later contributions- because of the several years time lag required for the clean-up, planning and contractual commitments that must precede any substantial returns.
That same dynamic is at work with IRAs, pensions and other investments designed to achieve goals effectively.

The City could work up several scenarios of potential contributions over time and estimate their actual value to the redevelopment, then be ready to propose these in response to any financial offer the County may propose.
Let's don't argue about how the funding would be made available, or how much; just the net positive impact on the redevelopment cash flow.
That way the discussion becomes more of a negotiation of times and amounts that is inherently easier to understand, explain and act upon.

In many respects the County has the same concerns the City has; that the Port stands to gain more than the estimated returns from the redevelopment as it progresses.
Rewards and risks should probably be in the same proportion for all the players.
Only the City seems to be the most likely relative loser financially, in all scenarios, but especially in the short-term.

But, if the Waterfront Redevelopment substantially exceeds expectations, everyone wins, and no one should complain about that because the ultimate benefit accrues to everyone!
------------------
To date, no County money has yet been committed at all to my knowledge.
What is particularly troubling is that some County Officials have even engaged in efforts to thwart the Waterfront Redevelopment, itself, from happening!
What is that about?

A cynic might think that some folks have figured along the following lines:

If the Waterfront Redevelopment should fail, the County could say 'I told you so!'

If the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds, the County will receive the entire tax benefits, but without taking any risk!

I hope that type of cynical thinking isn't rewarded!

I believe the real reason behind the County's reluctance to follow its own stated goals and help the Waterfront Redevelopment succeed lie in the hurried timing of the request, and the large amount of funding potentially involved.
Those things can be rectified, and done so much better in an atmosphere of collaboration and negotiation, but not with insufficient information or pressure tactics.

But, if cynicism is at work behind the County's reluctance to offer its valuable help, that is a different matter entirely.
I sincerely hope that isn't true, and that reasonable heads will prevail.
Accomplishing the Waterfront Redevelopment ought to be the sort of goal everyone can contribute to with vigor.
Our children will thank us for it one day!
----------------------
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis--

Ever Heard of LIDAR?

No, it's not the name of M*A*S*H Radar's brother, at least to my knowledge, but it is similar to RADAR.

According to information posted at this URL, a brief description is offered:

http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/

The USGS-NPS-NASA EAARL (Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar) system is a
'Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data.
This technology is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA scientists to document topographic changes along shorelines.
These data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches).
After a baseline data set has been created, follow-up flights can be used to detect shoreline changes.'

Or, according to :Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target.
The prevalent method to determine distance to an object or surface is to use laser pulses.
Like the similar radar technology, which uses radio waves instead of light, the range to an object is determined by measuring the time delay between transmission of a pulse and detection of the reflected signal.
LIDAR technology has application in geography, geology, geomorphology, seismology, remote sensing and atmospheric physics.'

and, under 'Applications':
'In geology and seismology a combination of aircraft-based LIDAR and GPS have evolved into an important tool for detecting faults and measuring uplift.
The output of the two technologies can produce extremely accurate elevation models for terrain that can even measure ground elevation through trees.
This combination was used most famously to find the location of the Seattle Fault in Washington, USA.
This combination is also being used to measure uplift at Mt. St. Helens by using data from before and after the 2004 uplift.'

A really fascinating way of observing what can be achieved by LIDAR technology is to visit Google Earth at:

http://earth.google.com/
----------------------
So why is this a topic of interest to people who live in Whatcom County?
Funny, you should ask!
Here's what I know.

There is proposal developed by three geologists, experienced in local topography, titled 'Western Whatcom County Geologic Mapping Project'.

The idea is to use 'extensive prior field work and newly-available LIDAR technology [to] make possible the production of a new generation of geologic maps for western Whatcom County.'
'These maps will define certain critical areas [wetlands, landslides, steep slopes, debris-flow fans, etc.]; allow improved assessments of groundwater availability, groundwater recharge areas, links between groundwater and in-stream flow, and potential for groundwater contamination; better define mineral resource potentials, active tectonics, and paleoseismicity; and provide a more robust framework for seismic site-response studies.'

That's a mouthful for a short introduction, isn't it?

I think its a great idea to combine local talent, existing information and high tech methodology to get important, accurate data into a form that can be reliably and more easily used.
I won't go into much more detail for now, except to say this proposal anticipates a total cost to Whatcom County of just under $200,000 for work to be done from the latter half of 2007 through 2011.

There are 2 funding options offered, with other variations possible:
A. Whatcom County could contract with one of the three principals, who would invoice the County quarterly as pre-defined milestones are reached. Or
B. Whatcom County could enter into a co-operative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, which would then contract with one of the three principals, and be in part responsible for the quality and completion of the work.
Under this option, the USGS would invoice the County quarterly, plus add 49.13% as USGS overhead.

In either scenario, significant donation of time and/or in-kind contribution is offered. One principal expects to donate his time, estimated at 30% of the actual total value for 3 years, or $200,000. Another principal would be be compensated by in-kind contributions from USGS for a total of $300,000. The third principal requires 50% of her time over 4.5 years to be supported by Whatcom County at about $45,000 per year, totalling $200,000.
Adding all that up means Whatcom County could get $700,000 in value for $200,000.
That's about $45,000 per year for 4.5 years for you mathematicians.

The maps resulting from this effort will be published either by USGS or Washington Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources in cooperation with USGS.
Final products will include both GIS-ready digital data and traditional maps [both pdf and published paper products] with map graphics, cross sections, Correlation of Map Unit diagrams, Descriptions of Map Units, tables of age data, and extensive explanatory text.
-------------
This proposal has been presented to our County Administration for its consideration and action, which one hopes will be forthcoming soon.
Of course, any request for funding must come before the County Council for action.
This being budget preparation time, I hope this item is included.
Stay tuned.

Growth Debate Revisited: BIA versus Eben Fodor

'It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world' - Aristotle

It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought - Aristotle

No notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye - Aristotle

Liars when they speak the truth are not believed - Aristotle

The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold
- Aristotle
-----------------------
OK, enough Aristotle quotes for now.
But, what was wisdom over two thousand years ago remains wisdom today.
That is the point.

Lois Garlick has already lived longer than most of us.
And, her life has reflected much of this wisdom that others never seem to learn.
Now, she has willingly taken on the task of bringing more enlightened leadership to our County by challenging the incumbent County Executive during the upcoming election.

Many don't give Lois much of chance.
So what?
She's got important stuff to say that she really stands for!
And, like Pete Kremen, she can hire administrators and key staff to help her run County affairs from day to day.

What Lois has is the character, values and wisdom to consistently lead Whatcom County in a manner that has been lacking for years!

Most probably won't remember the Guest Editorial reprinted below, but I do.
That is because Lois and I collaborated in writing and publishing this piece.
Read it for yourself and see if its message resonates with you.
Then, go out and support Lois against Pete!

At least hold Pete accountable for his performance in office.
I'm quite sure there are many besides me who think we can do better.
Not only better, but much better!
-----------------------------
A Concerned Citizen’s Response to Herald’s “Our View” Editorial [Published 10/11/2002]

Just like the four pages of canned comments that the BIA’s shill, Richard Emerson, had prepared in advance of Eben Fodor's talk, it appears the Herald’s editorial seems to have been written by faceless people without minds open to new information and approaches to growth management.

Or, perhaps the Herald simply figured out, since so much of their advertising is continually being paid for by the same pro-development groups, that these folks prefer to see their biases reflected in their local newspaper editorials.

That reasoning might also help explain why many of the same BIA myths printed in Bill Querhn's recent guest column, were again parroted here.
In any event, this Herald editorial differs little from prior BIA-written opinion pieces, except it is more grammatically correct, and does concede some points that are already rather obvious to everyone.

Did the “Our View” writer(s) actually attend Eben Fodor's speech?

Have they watched the event on EGTV Channel 10?

Are they aware that video cassettes of the presentation are available?

Have they read Fodor's book, BETTER Not Bigger, or any of his published reports which were commissioned by the States of Oregon and Washington?

If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', has the Herald simply dismissed his arguments and findings?

While it is understandable for the Herald to prefer easy, business as usual approaches to growth policy issues, it is deplorable that it allows itself to be so easily and thoroughly co-opted by growth machine rhetoric.

For example, is the debate really about growth or no growth?
Aren't there other, intermediate steps to be considered in the spectrum between these two extremes?

Do they know that the Washington Research Council's 'economist' they quote is really paid for the BIA?

Where do the specious arguments about anti-minority and immigrant sentiment come from?

Is it possible these are also being generated by pro-growth interests as a means of discrediting efforts to reasonably regulate growth?

Isn't that the real reason that people like Eben Fodor, who dare to expose the growth machine's carefully crafted mythology, are listed as public enemy number 1 by the BIA?

We have seen that kind of thinking before, to the detriment of human history.
"If you don't agree with us and do what we say, you're the enemy!"

The Herald is certainly correct in seeing growth as a form of change, and change is a reality for all of us - every day of our lives.
But aren't certain types of change are more desirable than others, particularly if sustained quality of life is considered important?
In the words of Edward Abbey, " Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

These are the larger concepts about which the 'growth debate' is really all about - how to do things better for us all in the long run, by learning from the past.
The situation we face now is very different from what Henry Roeder faced.
There are many more of us now, and we can more easily see that the cumulative effect of our individual impacts on our common environment, the air, water and soil we all share, have been very detrimental indeed.

Our challenge is to determine how to change our habits in the interest of long term sustainability
That is a goal in which we all have a true interest.

The organizers of the Eben Fodor event were all concerned citizens, who raised most of the costs.
That the Herald would so lightly dismiss these citizens’ well-intended efforts to inform themselves and the public of new, albeit provocative ideas, smacks of arrogance and irresponsibility.

Instead, these folks deserve our collective thanks for taking the initiative for getting this growth debate to center stage at a time when meaningful changes are possible.
Opinions are free. Informed opinions require honest hard work to acquire.

A.J. Liebling once said: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
As the entity which owns the largest printing press in town, the Herald needs to work harder to inform itself about these difficult issues, before expressing written opinions on important issues for public consumption.
==================

Economic Development: 2003 versus 2007 - What has Changed?

Economic Development is an issue that means different things to different people.
But, all seem to agree that any definition has to include jobs, business activity and the cash flow that results therefrom.

Our Growth Management Act [GMA] requires most cities and counties to plan their growth, and memorialize their game plans for accomplishing that in Comprehensive Plans that are updated from time to time.

Six Chapters, or Elements, are mandated by law;

1. Framework Goals & Policies
2. Land Use
3. Housing
4. Transportation
5. Community Design
6. Capital Facilities & Utilities

An additional, optional, Element, Parks, Recreation & Open Space, was adopted in 2005.

I think we need to adopt another optional Element, Economic Development, to define what Bellingham does now, and wishes to do in the future, to sustain our local economy and job base.
Fortunately, the City is now taking a step toward that goal by developing Strategic Guidelines for Economic Development.

Without a written plan, there will be endless and unproductive debate over what the City is, or should be, doing to retain and grow local businesses and attract new ones that fit into the future we are trying to achieve.

The County has such a plan, and it reads well, although it isn't always followed. [Witness the Waterfront Redevelopment Project for example] But, it is important to state clearly what actions and policy make sense to achieve goals that are agreed to as good.

Since the Port's main mission is to be an economic engine, it also has a plan which is followed. Of interest was a study undertaken by the Port a few years ago by the firm of Deloitte & Touche, which concluded with recommendations that emphasize simply focusing on Seattle and Vancouver, BC businesses, and encouraging our natural location create advantageous branches to locate here.

Both County and Port ED Plans recognize that the days of natural resource extraction and heavy manufacturing are in decline. In their place, we might encourage cleaner industry and businesses that require advanced learning or technology and provide family wage jobs. That seems like a wise plan that the City could emulate as the major population center in the region.

But the issues surrounding ED are many and varied, with many interrelated and some requiring specific actions to address. I'm glad to report we are making some progress on some of these things like improvements in the City's Planning and with leadership in place to help the waterfront effort.

A sensible plan for economic development also needs to take into account the services the City already provides, then build upon those.
It also needs to take into account the concerns and needs of businesses already here, as well as those that may be attracted.

Below are some responses I gave to 3 campaign questions back in 2003 that may be of interest to readers.
Some of the examples cited are a little dated, but the responses illustrate the points intended.
====================================================

QUESTION 1.
What is the biggest issue facing Bellingham business and how will you address that issue as a City Council member?

ANSWER:
I believe the biggest 'issue' facing Bellingham businesses is uncertainty.

This is evidenced in several areas, including:
o permitting procedures, their clarity & timing,
o zoning & land use decisions & restrictions,
o availability of water & sewer extensions,
o impacts of growth on costs,
o transportation planning & options,
o parking availability,
o local tax structure,
o sustaining its employee payroll & profits
o and the overall economy

The City can continuously strive to improve certainty and stability relating to the first seven points, because they are clearly influenced by City & County policy, laws and rules.
These can also influence a business's ability to sustain itself.
The last point has a major impact, but is outside either the City or County's control.

As a City Council member, I will work to address the first four points as part of updating our Comprehensive Plan for managing growth.
This needs to be done cooperatively with the County so that the benefits of regional planning can be realized.

Points 5 & 6 need to be also specifically built into our plans for revitalizing the downtown & waterfront areas.
City taxes, fees & utility rates need to be adequate, fair and stable.
============================================================

QUESTION 2.
One of the main obstacles in the construction of new buildings downtown and in Fairhaven has been complaints from citizens that the buildings block their views.
Should this be handled on a case-by-case basis or should there be firm rules to guide the protection of views?

ANSWER:
This question apparently refers to the Chrysalis Hotel; Finnegan's Alley & the proposed new Village Books Store in Fairhaven; and the State Street Multi-year Tax Exempt Apartment structure, which replaces a derelict structure near downtown.
All these buildings are situated in areas clearly designated for high-density commercial use.
They were also conditioned by public in-put, to less than the heights that might have otherwise been allowed.
Others will likely be considered in the future, such as the Old Town redevelopment site, etc.

The Finnegan's Alley building height allowed was questionable, however, once determined this set a precedent for the Village Books building.
Both structures were approved at heights and configurations more acceptable to their neighbors.

Likewise, the Chrysalis Hotel and State Street Apartments were modified in response to the concerns of neighbors.
This is as it should be, since it is practically impossible to have firm rules that cover every eventuality.

Clear guidelines are preferable, but these must allow some case-by-case variation.
This is necessary if we are to achieve the urban density required to prevent sprawl.

View protection is important, within limits, but it must compete with other priorities as well.
More work is needed to define view parameters.
============================================================

QUESTION 3.
Should Bellingham try to limit growth? Why or why not, and if so, how?

ANSWER:
Yes, there are finite limits to any activity, whether these are recognized in advance or not.
This important question is now in the process of being answered for our community during the process of updating our Comprehensive Plan, in cooperation with the County.

Limits do apply to rate of increase, ultimate size, quality, timing and related costs.
All of these parameters need to be recognized in conjunction with the resources available to deal with them reasonably and in a timely fashion.

I believe that sustaining our quality of life demands that we pay attention to how our growth is planned and paid for.
The best approach seems to be a regional one, in which City and County collaboratively plan our future housing, transportation, critical areas, open space and public services needs.
If this is done well and costs are shared equitably with new development, then our valued quality of life can be sustained for future generations to enjoy.

More growth will place increasing demands on our water supply and public infrastructure, both of which need to be maintained for the benefit of the public.
It would be irresponsible for our governments to ignore the impacts and hidden costs of growth.
========================================================
And, a second survey with 3 questions:
-------------------
Q1. What are three concrete policies you would pursue to help the Bellingham business community?
=============================================================
Under the theory that 'a rising tide floats all boats', here are three specific areas of policy improvement that would most effectively help the business community, and citizens.

1.1. Work smarter and more efficiently at what the City does now, by operating more like a socially and environmentally responsible business with a culture of continuous improvement.

Supplemental Answer: Keep doing what we are doing, what cities uniquely do:
Continue supporting:

o Essential City services, like those provided by Police, Fire, EMS, Planning, Public Works, Muni Court, & Parks Depts, as well as the Library, Museum and Mt Baker Theater.

o Small Business Development Center

o Economic Development Council

o Chamber Of Commerce

o Port Of Bellingham -in particular joint planning for redevelopment of the G-P waterfront area.

o Multi-year Tax exemption program to stimulate housing downtown, but review entire program annually.

o Downtown Design Standards

o Public Facilities District and its Centennial Project related to expanding the Mt Baker Theater to stimulate Downtown development & vitality

o Remediation of Brownfields sites like the REStore, for which Federal grants are available- only to governments

o Maintenance of public facilities

o Maintenance of public services

o Downtown & Neighborhood Business groups

o Way-finding system enhancements

o Convention & Visitors Bureau - Maps & tourism promotion

o Condemnation of derelict buildings to stimulate redevelopment Improve:

o Permitting process -both within the city and jointly with Whatcom County

o Consistency within the Bellingham Municipal Code

o Cooperation with Whatcom County

o Communication with public on all issues of importance

o Coordination between City departments

o Fiscal discipline in approving unbudgeted expenditures

o Mass transit routes with WTA

o WWU links to downtown

o Bicycle/pedestrian friendly routes

Develop:

o Downtown parking & circulation plans to encourage convenience, certainty and efficiency

o Plans to fund the above a schedule of priorities.
---------------------

1.2. Set realistic long-range goals based upon the community's vision, and incorporate these into the city's Comprehensive Plan as part of a new Economic Development Element.

Supplemental Answer: One clear way the city could insure continued focus on this issue is to prepare its own Economic Development Element to be included in its Comprehensive Plan - our blueprint for managing growth.

With a clear, written set of principles and goals, we are more apt to remember what the community's goals are and to be guided by them in every day affairs.
This issue is so closely associated with sound fiscal policy that it simply must be pursued, with a purpose!

An Economic Development Element was mentioned as a future goal in the Comp Plan approved in 1997, using State funding which has not been forthcoming.
This should be undertaken anyway, as a means of collecting and consolidating input from the various regional agencies that are focused on Economic Development.

=============================================================
1.3. Implement more effective policies regarding the management of our growth and how this will be funded.

Supplemental Answer: The last ten years has seen Bellingham grow almost 30 percent.
While it is nice to be recognized nationally as a great place to live, growth-related pressures will likely overwhelm us if we are not careful.
This could easily degrade the area to a 'not so nice' place in the future.
During the last 5 years, the city has struggled to find ways of dealing with new development both within the city, and in the Urban Growth Areas [UGA] controlled by the county.
Under the State Growth Management Act, these UGAs are designated to accommodate urban density development to prevent sprawl.

Because of the twin problems of uncertainty as to whether the county or the city controls the permitting, and inequity as to how tax revenues are shared, proper and consistent annexation to the city is being deterred.
The result is that our UGAs are turning into 'no-man's ('no-person's) lands' where neither county nor city is able to fix the lack of infrastructure that is making these areas unattractive in which to live, work and play.
In time, the city will inherit this problem, unless measures are enacted to rectify these problems.

Currently, about 12,000 residents live in the UGAs outside City Limits and jurisdiction.
These residents could add about 17% to Bellingham population, but only if they petition for annexation, which is not happening for residential areas.

No City taxes are being collected from the UGAs to pay for City services, even though these people do use City facilities. About $2.5 million per year in additional property taxes, could be collected by the City if these residential UGAs areas were
annexed.
Even this amount would likely not be sufficient to fully cover the costs of these additional City services.

It is critical to our continued livability for us to find better ways of managing this growth. Establishing responsible growth management practices and ensuring these are followed will be one of the biggest tasks we face in the coming years.
This year the city expects to complete its 5-year update to its Comprehensive Plan - its growth management 'bible' and blueprint.
The county has until the end of 2004 to complete its plan, which also includes all the cities.

These decisions on the direction of our future growth and how it will be managed need to incorporate a coordinated
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that is fully utilized by both city and county.

Such a market-driven program will help us to achieve the higher densities required by the Growth Management Act, while also protecting our more sensitive areas, like lake Whatcom, and treating property owners more fairly.

Of course, these growth issues are very strongly impacting municipal finances.
This area needs to be watched closely to anticipate additional demands on funding and develop appropriate new self-funding sources.
It won't work to have County and City continue to not address these larger, less visible problems that can adversely impact everyone.

=============================================================
Q2. How would you balance demands for a reasonable tax rate with demands for a certain level of infrastructure as services?
--------------------
Q2. Answer:
Bellingham's overall tax rate is relatively low and stable as compared with other cities in Whatcom County and it's peer cities.

It has even been awarded a 'Friend of the Taxpayer Award' for its frugality in resisting raising property taxes.
Additionally, Moody's upgraded the city's bond rating to 'Aa' because of the city's consistent good financial management
and excellent credit rating.
'Reasonableness' is a relative term, which depends upon what services the public wants and is willing and able to pay
for.
Balancing the revenues derived from taxes with infrastructure needs and priorities is an ongoing juggling act for the city.

Consider the following:

The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee spent 2.5 years evaluating the city's capital needs, setting priorities, identifying funding sources and making specific recommendations.
This effort culminated in a report issued in 2001.
This report identified two basic categories of projects; those with identified or dedicated funding sources [A], and those without [B].
Both categories recognized the importance of maintaining existing facilities as a priority, in addition to the need for new facilities.
These facilities exclude schools, state & federal facilities and Port facilities, which have separate funding & administration.

Examples of Category A infrastructure & facilities [with identified funding] include:

o Streets & Sidewalks [these funds can be supplemented by LIDs, grants & REET monies]

o Water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]

o Sewer Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by System Development Charges]

o Storm-water Utility facilities [these funds can be supplemented by new rates & LIDS]

o Parking facilities & other 'enterprise' fund facilities, which are designed to be self-supporting. [funding may be supplemented by repayable Councilmanic Bonds, Public Facilities District funds, private investment]

Examples of Category B infrastructure & facilities [without dedicated funding] include:

o City Hall [seismic & HVAC upgrades from General Fund]

o Muni Court [General Fund]

o Museum [seismic & HVAC upgrades form General Fund, grants, bonds]

o Library [expansion from bonds &/or HVAC upgrade from General Fund]

o Mt Baker Theater [GF maint + expansion from Grants, Bond, PFD funds, private]

o Police Dept [+ Dispatch]

o Fire Dept [6 stations + Training facility, EMS & Dispatch]

o Parks, Trails & Open Space facilities [from General Fund, grants, potential future levy]

There are far more identified needs than there is funding for them, therefore we must prioritize and plan phased implementation.
Finding funding is both an art and a science, plus a juggling act in real time.
Growth related facilities must use either voted bonds or impact fees/system development charges paid by developers and/or users.

Much discussion and debate has transpired specifically over the B & O tax, which currently generates about $7.5 million per year in City revenues, its 3rd largest source.
Some see B&O as business unfriendly, and in some respects it is, because it is based upon gross revenues.
However, since the State of Washington has no income tax provisions, there are limited ways for governments to raise funds from all entities fairly.
Until the State government changes this situation, we're stuck with it because local governments rely upon it as a major source of revenue.

[We are even more reliant upon this tax source as a result of I-695, which removed most of MVET taxes as the State's 4th largest source of revenue,which in turn impacted cities.
Bellingham has permanently lost about $1.5 Million annually from its General Fund due to I-695.
This is particularly devastating because these funds were used to pay for public safety services from the General Fund.
This is a major reason for the City & County seeking a separate source of funding for countywide EMS, by voted levy.]

Recently, Bellingham did adopt a revised, Model B&O tax measure along with other major cities, which reduced tax rates for certain businesses such as engineering companies by 61%.
It also made compliance easier and more equitable by clearly defining 'who pays what and where'.

Because cities do require revenues and businesses need to pay their fair share, B&O taxes are mainly used for General Fund expenses, which are primarily related to public safety services like police, fire and EMS.

In many respects, a State income tax would be fairer, more stable and less onerous on businesses than the B&O tax, because it would be based upon net revenues/profits and would also would likely allow a deduction on federal taxes.
But this is primarily a State issue that must be resolved at that level.
Pressure will likely build for change until something happens.
Meanwhile, local government is not an enemy of business because of using B&O taxes as a revenue source, it is merely using the tools it is capable of using to support essential services.
We could use a new toolbox, with some new tools!
=============================================================
Q3. How would you attract new businesses and foster growth for existing businesses while retaining the character that draws people to Bellingham?
-----------------------
Q3. Answer: The city's continued role as outlined above, is essential to this task.
As a general matter, it would be nice to see businesses and local government become better partners in the welfare of our community.
However, each entity has a different role to play, although there are numerous overlaps in interests.
While interested in being helpful to businesses, the public often is concerned about the perception of 'privatizing profits and
socializing costs'.
An even-handed policy is required, with no favoritism shown to any special interest.

This children's rhyme exemplifies perhaps the best and most succinct philosophy for us to follow:
"Make new friends, but keep the old.
One is silver and the other gold."
Currently about 80% of job growth is coming from existing businesses, with most of them having 25 employees or less.

Keeping existing businesses healthy so they can grow and sustain themselves is the best method known to help our local economy.
Like having a balanced investment portfolio, having a good diversity of businesses in our community is also helpful.
By achieving this condition, other businesses will naturally be attracted here.
This philosophy was echoed in the Deloitte & Touche study & report commissioned two years ago by the Port of
Bellingham, whose charter it is to spur economic development.

Businesses do much needed work for the community by:

o providing jobs and benefits to employees

o providing services and products needed

o providing taxes to pay for government services

o providing donations to charities and schools

o providing talented people to volunteer and participate in the community

o providing investment returns and profits for reinvestment in the local economy

Our way of life depends upon businesses succeeding, because our society is powered by economics, and business is that engine.
I know this personally from spending 35 years working in public and private business, from which I receive a retirement income, social security and healthcare plan.
Our national economy also plays a big role locally.

Our way of life also depends upon our natural resources being protected for the future and our community's social character and charm being sustained.
So, business also has to be a partner in these things too - it is not an island unto itself, as was thought at times in the past. Full cost accounting demands that the larger picture requires balance among its parts.
COB can encourage best those businesses that are environmentally & socially conscious as well as economically viable.
That, plus a healthy diversity of locally based businesses seems ideal for Bellingham.
==========================================================

"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age." - Einstein

Reconveyance: No September Surprises

An interesting juxtaposition of events occurred today.

First, a 'courtesy' announcement on behalf of a McShane for Mayor event, with this message:

"Dan introduces a bold plan to help protect Lake Whatcom
Dan McShane is working with County Executive Pete Kremen to place more than a quarter of the Lake Whatcom watershed into protected park status. The agreement with the Department of Natural Resources to move forward on a land swap to block up 8,400 or so acres of land was signed on Friday by Pete Kremen and Doug Sutherland, Commissioner of Public Lands.

Just over a year from now Whatcom County will have a spectacular new park of mature forest above the shores of Lake Whatcom with likely trail connections towards Lake Samish and Blanchard Mountain to the west and Mt. Baker to the east. This is one of the biggest steps towards protection of the watershed yet and is an example of how McShane approaches problems: visionary thinking, strong leadership, a collaborative approach and follow-through. This project could not have happened without the support of the County Executive, other Council members, hundreds of citizens, the City of Bellingham, our Legislators and the Department of Natural Resources. Dan is especially grateful for Pete Kremen's commitment to this effort. Dan will bring this approach to the mayor's office. To read more about Dan's proposal, go here [URL]."

Sounds pretty bold to announce something before October, doesn't it?

Dan and Pete, or Pete and Dan?
Doesn't matter, they're in this together and have been planning it for a while - in semi-secret.
---------
Then, we are privileged to receive a flurry of e-mails, both pro and con, which tend to neutralize any preference.
---------
Then comes a somewhat strange telephone request from Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest, asking me to 'broker' a rush meeting -prior to the 6:30 PM County Council announcement- with individuals whom he has developed a difficulty in communications. I declined, not because I already had other plans, but because patching up other people's intra-personal problems is not something I particularly relish. But, at least Mitch called me and asked. That appears to be an improvement in my own relationship wih Mitch, but maybe it's just because he needed something he thought I could provide.

I did have other plans and things to do, which prevented me from attending the County Council announcement.
But, I did receive some direct feedback from this meeting, including the plain paper handout reproduced below, and a map depicting 'Lake Whatcom Watershed - Ownership 2006'.
BTW, the map handed out, I have heard, is incorrect according to a DNR source.

Be that as it may, the reconveyance scheme may be an OK thing.
But, the devil is always in the details, isn't it?
One observation was that no County Council members except 'BBgun' seemed to object to it.
Maybe Dan got his votes lined up in advance this time?
Or was it Pete?
Let's see, who could benefit from such a 'pleasant' surprise? Pete? Dan? Sam? Bob?
Of course Doug Sutherland is running for re-election next year, too.

I still have some concerns.
Like, Parks seem to stimulate development nearby.
During the City's Greenways campaign, we learned that Parks enhance nearby property values by an average of 11%.
Normally, that's a good thing.
But in a special watershed?
Guess, I'll need more persuasion on that point.

My main concern remains focused on what kind of Park is envisioned, and with what uses?
After that, what confidence do we have in the County's ability to fund and manage a Park any better than DNR manages its forestlands?
Both of these are legitimate concerns that need more discussion.
And facts!

I'll concede a rare political advance, but only if it is earned.
Stay tuned on this one and see haow it plays out.
----------------------------------------
Proposed Re-conveyance of State Forest Lands
In the Lake Wnatcom Watershed
Draft Framework

1. Purpose of the transactions proposed in the Agreement

2. Summary of the Agreement

3. Background and current situation relevant to the Agreement

4. Scope - description of the specific parcels involved

5. Rationale for inter-grant exchange
a. Current configuration and disadvantages
b. Objectives to create more manageable blocks for the parties' respective purposes

6. Requirements for inter-grant exchange
a. valuation (including appraisal costs, etc.)
b. balancing of values on the respective sides
c. maps
d. decision-making authority

7. Rationale for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. park purposes, including distinction from general multiple use of trust lands
b. unique aspects of the situation for the Lake Whatcom watershed
c. specific park intentions and elements related to specific parcels to be re-conveyed
d. expectations for management of adjacent state trust lands

8. Requirements for re-conveyance of State Forest Trust lands for park purposes
a. Whatcom County request
b. Action required by DNR, RCO, Board of Natural Resources, etc.
c. Conformance to final inter-grant exchange
d. Legal documentation and maps, including encumbrances, improvements, agreements obligations, retained rights, etc.

9. Management issues for re-conveyed lands
a. management obligations and costs
b. disposition of any revenues received from management
c. liabilities, encumbrances, hazards, etc.
d. timber management
e. obligations/rights retained by the State of Washington
f. criteria for reversion of lands to the State of Washington

10. Management issues for retained federally-granted trust lands and for Skagit County State Forest Trust lands in the watershed
a. physical characteristics of retained land; benefits of working forest, revenue, watershed protection, and multiple use
b. management direction from HCP and Policy for Sustainable Forest
c. effects of retaining or not retaining the Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan
d. agreements on specific management elements in support of park purposes on re-conveyed land (Eg: trail easements, multiple use, etc., but excluding management restrictions for scenic qualities beyond PSF)

11. Status of Lake Whatcom Watershed Landscape Plan and potential future legislative action

12. Proposed steps to implement the MOA
a. Joint stakeholder outreach and communication plan
b. Legal/transaction steps
c. Due diligence steps
d. Financing plan to carry out transactions
e. Future legislative Strategy
f. Decision-making requirements

13. Effect on current beneficiaries of Whatcom County State Forest Land

14. Proposed Timeline

15. commitment by parties to proceed and complete agreed on actions

__________
(note: the above text was distributed by County Employees, on plain paper, not attributed to any agency, office or person, OCR scanned)

The 10th Street Parking 'issue': A Tempest in a Teapot

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
-Sir Edmund Burke"
--------------
When this rather routine item first began becoming an 'issue' in 2006, I was skeptical of its importance and therefore inclined to dismiss it as a few NIMBYs intent on getting their way.

Then, it became apparent that some Council members had taken up this cause 'du jour', which led to Council actually directing staff to reexamine the parking plans.
I decided to listen more closely to the history of planning the Taylor Street Dock Project, the plan that was adopted for implementation, all in the context of the rhetoric about whether the angled parking planned should be provided or a lesser number of parallel spaces.

I also visited the site -just north of the Chrysalis Hotel- on several occasions; re-read all the information provided by Parks Dept and by citizens -both pro and con-; attended the special meeting which lasted almost 3 hours and was televised; attended the 7/12 Parks Board meeting at which this topic was again discussed; and reflected on all the above proceedings while trying to keep an open mind.

My initial feeling that this was a small issue, has been magnified by the realization that any issue, no matter how small, can become bigger if a few people want it to do so.
There are always questions about 'public process' and whether neighborhoods are adversely impacted, whether viable alternatives have been considered that would work equally well, whether adequate notice was given, and whether other agendas are being furthered through exploitation of each divisive opportunity.

What I have determined in this case is that much valuable and scarce staff time has been expended for little good purpose, that the design proposed by Parks was reasonable and was itself the product of active debate and negotiation, that my patience is growing thin in listening to selfish arguments that are disguised as 'the will of the neighbors', that those who wish to influence the public and Council will stop at nothing, including deliberately shading the truth, hawking petitions based on false choices, and packing public meetings, and personally deriding those who disagree, to achieve their desires.

I hoped that the Council would have the wisdom to carefully evaluate this debate, separate the facts from the fiction, and confirm its support of both the Parks Department's professional conduct and its recommended plan for parking.
That did not happen.

But, there were a few new ideas offered in this debate that could either be used to modify the plan or to confirm it is truly needed in the interest of public safety and fairness to the community as a whole.

Here are a few points that I either heard pretty clearly, or deduced, during this 'debate':

• Arguing over 12 additional parking spaces seems trivial and a waste of time.
Although this argument was from a neighborhood supporter, it cuts both ways.

• Parallel parking could have been provided on both sides of the street, but at major additional cost and adverse impacts to neighbors' front yards.

• Safely separating pedestrians from cars and bicycles is necessary and makes good sense.
Some even seemed to believe this should be a pedestrian 'promenade' area, excluding cars.

• There is already angled parking in this area -south of the Hotel- and it works well to protect car passengers and bikers.

• Nearby Boulevard Park has inadequate parking, and is severely limited for space, but is linked to Taylor Street Dock by use. Connecting these two areas with sidewalks and maximizing available space for parking seemed wise.

• Some other neighbors -the less vocal ones- do support the Parks Dept angled parking plan, including the new condos, Rip-Tide, and some single family units. But, their voices were drowned out.

• 2-hour parking signs could be used to ensure turnover.

• Taylor Street Dock is a major attraction for the entire community as well as visitors.
This project took many years and millions of dollars to realize, and should not considered as a private amenity.

• New 15-minute bus service, one block away, helps people access to Taylor Street Dock, but doesn't solve long term problem.

• The area intended to provide parking is in an oversized 100-foot Street Right-Of-Way, not in parkland or shoreline areas.

• There is a perception by some that all of the grassed space is to be their neighborhood park, and not part of a community park area financed by 4.5 million in public funds. This included gravelled areas formerly used for parking!

• By not providing all of the parking -as proposed- here, it will force parking into adjacent areas, impacting lawns and less safe road shoulders.

• This matter was not an appropriate matter for the City Council to debate and decide.
Interposing the Council's will on routine plans that have already been thoroughly vetted, are likely to encourage more minor disagreements to balloon to similar outlandish proportions.

• Council's unwise actions on this routine matter, have served to undermine confidence in the Parks Dept's integrity and professionalism, and what is meant by 'public process' in general.
Plus it has been a terrific waste of time and community good will!

• The role of the Neighborhood Association interjecting itself into this 'issue' is also questionable, suggesting a test of wills on a small, divisive issue.
At times it seemed as if the parking wasn't the 'issue' at all; that other agendas were at work to decide who could pander better to those who professed that angled parking harmed them.
Almost 'Alice in Wonderland-like'!

• Can you imagine a time when a friend or relative from across town, or out of town, arrives and visits Taylor Street Dock? Are they likely to walk, bike or take a bus there?
The lack of parking is already a problem at certain times and this problem will only grow in the future.
Why not put 12 more parking spaces there to efficiently -and more safely- use the space available?

• Downtown's Railroad Avenue has four rows of angled parking in front of popular eating establishments that have high rates of turnover.
These are empty during most hours, but more than full at others.
They operate safely and efficiently and provide on street parking that is easily accessed, while separating people from cars and bikes.
It is ludicrous to call these dangerous, unsightly or unneeded.

• The use of personal, ad hominem attacks on those who supported angled parking speaks volumes for the mind-set of those campaigning so hard to get their wish, against it.
They don't seem to care about others needs, or the fact this is a community wide amenity that has required years of planning, enormous funding and effort to make it happen.
The utter dismissal of the process that got us to where we are now, really comes across as selfish and arbitrary.

• Some opponents of angled parking actually thought of the green R-O-W strip as theirs!
They are right, but so are many others who don't live across the street.
The R-O-W's are owned by the residents, but with the proviso they are to be used by the City in the best interests of community wide health, safety and welfare!
Residents could buy this property for their private use, but only if is determined to be superfluous to City needs, and formally vacated by the City Council.

• This immediate area has been improved greatly over what it was in the past.
Blackberries, weeds and debris have been cleared, the property purchased with public funds and amenities built and mainatained.
Most people would be very pleased to have the additional parking, instead of people blocking their driveways and side streets.

• The conduct of those so strongly opposed to angled parking was abysmal at times.
Aside from outright misinformation, loudly insisting on spurious arguments, and acting discourteously [applause, personal attacks, discrediting staff] to City staff and others who attended the 7/12/06 meeting, in particular.
Despite presentations from knowledgeable professionals, these people would not acknowledge any benefit of the angled parking plan, which was carefully explained on several occasions.
This type of conduct illustrates closed thinking based upon personal wants and wishes, not facts or community good.
It is incredible that a majority of Council would accede to this type of pressure, and over such a 'trivial' matter!

• Rewarding such conduct would encourage more of the same.

• The Coast Millenium Trail uses this trail segment, either via the dock or 10th street, and requires continuity as it passes through the city.

• Such a decision should not be made solely on the basis of popular, vocal support.
Even if only one person spoke who had a truly convincing argument, that would be sufficient for a responsibly made decision.
====================
Curiously, it was during this particular 'issue' that I began to broaden my friendship with Joan Beardsley, who had just entered office in January of 2006.
I came to greatly admire and respect her for her good heart and clear perspective, although I had not known her well, or for long.
We shared many of the same values and motivations for public service, and I miss her ready smile, capacity for work and caring personality.
Her premature passing was a sadness, brightened only by her good memory.
--------------------------
Joan was having something of a difficult time understanding this 'issue' and deciding upon it fairly.
As was her fashion, she listened to everyone, spent hours asking questions, seeking answers and constantly sought solutions that were satisfactory for all. In this case, the latter proved simply impossible!
But, still she tried.

Here's an excerpt of an e-mail I sent her, which seemed to help.
She later told me that she had placed this in a 'refer to frequently' file.
I felt truly honored that these thoughts helped her.
----------
"Joan,

Thanks for your e-mail note on this debate, which has recently been allowed to take on dimensions of such importance.
I am copying all Council members because the information provided here may be of general interest as well.

I do appreciate your struggles in attempting to come to a right decision, because that demonstrates you are trying to examine all aspects of this discussion, which has now become an issue.
How refreshing!
That is also what elected officials are supposed to do and no one can ask for more.
So, no 'apologies' are needed, least of all to me.

There is no set protocol or rule book with rigid criteria to guide us, and if there were it would be impossible to enforce.

Some of the general principles I have decided to follow -regardless of issue- are these:

• whether decisions are legal

• whether they are fair and consistent with policy and past precedents

• whether they reasonably comport with the process that developed them

• whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility

• whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political

• whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain

• whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why

• whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured

• whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options

• whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations

• whether any adverse unintended consequences may result

• whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement

• whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs

• whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same

Note that none of these allow me much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism.
None of these are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications."
----------------------
At the meeting in which this 'issue' was finally decided -[4 to 3 against angled parking]- Joan was part of the minority.
She had decided in favor of the original idea proposed by the Parks Dept for angled parking.

But, that was not the biggest decision that Joan Beardsley made that night.

Earlier, she had announced her mistake in believing that four Council votes had been committed to spending all available Greenways 3 money to purchase Chuckanut Ridge property.
That took courage, of which she had plenty!

Here's a brief excerpt of the e-mail I sent her later that night:

'Joan,

Thank you for your courage in making your statement this afternoon and again tonight.
I know it was not an easy thing to do to admit a mistake and try to correct it.
But, you did exactly the right thing and I support you fully.

Regarding tonight's discussion on 10th Street, you again showed the sort of reasoned thinking and backbone that I most admire.
I believe this one little episode served as a real learning experience on how genuine concerns can be elevated and expanded to outlandish, entrenched positions, and the power of pressure exerted in just the right ways to influence what should have been a rather routine decision.
It would be an overstatement to call this a clear case of micro-management, because some legitimate issues were thoroughly discussed and a number of good ideas presented that would have otherwise gone unheard.

In the end, I have to ask myself was this effort worth it?
For the 'winners' perhaps it was, but what about the entire community and the message -intended or unintended- that was communicated?
It was a microcosm of larger issues with which I believe we could have better spent our time, but time management is not a strength of legislative bodies!
In the long term, it will not attract mention in any history books, but I still believe it is the principle that counts, not the petty politics.
This, despite the current awful regime in that other Washington - DC. Guess that comes from being a Tarheel from NC.
We have the reputation for being slow to anger, but once aroused, not retreating from a fight.

The troubling part to me has been the lengths that people will go to get their way, no matter how important.
That has always been my Achilles Heel.
I truly need to trust the people I associate with, as I also need to earn their trust.
Unfortunately, I have lost that feeling with some of the current Council members, but not you.

Joan, you have the greatest potential for the kind of caring and reasoned leadership this city really needs.
You are universally well liked and respected and were elected with 70% of the voters on issues that really count, not the promise of pandering to every special interest group that whines.
You have tremendous political capital to spend wisely, as I am sure you plan to do.
Do not become distracted or discouraged in this noble endeavor!
And take care of yourself by setting realistic limits on what you can do without harming your own well being.
And, above all, do not let this feed your ego!

Thank you again for being there for the fine citizens of Bellingham.
And thanks for just naturally sharing much of my own philosophy of best efforts, every time.
That is obvious and greatly encourages me.

Regards,
John"
--------------------------
God bless you Joan Beardsley. Your spirit lives!
--------------------------
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
--Theodore Roosevelt

Pork Barrel Heaven: Reflections on the City’s "Living Wage" Ordinance

With the recent announcement of the G-P Tissue Mill finally closing down, with the loss of 210 more truly Family Wage jobs, and with the continued adverse trends of increased poverty levels and un-affordable home prices, it may be appropriate to revisit discussions that started 5 years ago that somewhat related to addressing these problems at the local level.

Because this particular Ordinance impacts the City's budget, but without measurable compensating benefits, it is fair game for scrutiny.
As the article reprinted below demonstrates, this unplanned, un-prioritized and unfunded measure is a 'poster child' example of what can happen when citizens aren't paying attention to the forces at work to influence Council decisions.

In its initial version, this Ordinance was estimated [by Finance Dept & Human Resources] to cost the City over $450,000 ANNUALLY. That amount is currently the equivalent to about 3% in new property taxes!
Of course, the Council can only authorize by itself, a 1% increase in property taxes each year, without a public vote.
Fortunately, the estimated costs per year were reduced in the final version to about $56,000, but because no accounting was provided for, even this remains an estimate.

But, it was not only the ongoing fiscal impacts that were so troubling to me; it was the short-sighted arrogance, driven by organized labor's hidden agenda that was so brazen!
This was mainly a 'feel-good' measure, that was admittedly symbolic in nature; but also one that had hidden costs and other impacts that do not help anyone at budget time.

---------------------------
Just after this Ordinance was passed, I published this Herald Guest Editorial - Circa November 2002:

Aren’t there better ways of achieving the goal of providing more livable wage jobs?

The so-called ‘Living Wage’ ordinance recently passed by City Council supports the Eric Severeid theory; that often a chief cause of problems, are the very ‘solutions’ that politicians devise.

A more accurate title would have been "Minimum Wage" ordinance, but this title was avoided because it loses the cachet of popular appeal.
As supporters of this measure readily admit, it is mostly symbolic and will do very little to actually achieve its professed goal. Let's go a step further and say it will likely just hurt taxpayers by perpetually saddling them with more unnecessary taxes and creeping bureaucracy.

Every City Council member strongly supports the goal of providing more living wages for our community.
But major differences do exist in the methods advocated to achieve this goal.
Without carefully targeting those recipients who are most in need, the effectiveness of this ordinance cannot even be measured.
This is certainly not the kind of law likely to honestly achieve its stated goal.
Whose interest is served by expediting such a symbolic 'shotgun' approach, calculated to attract a bare majority of Council votes, plus the Mayor's blessing?

H.L. Mencken once said that every complex problem has at least one simple solution – which is absolutely wrong!
By passing such a ‘pseudo solution’, more is promised than can be delivered, and already scarce tax money is wasted.
The $55 thousand dollars per year estimated price tag represents the equivalent of about one-half percent property tax increase, or half the amount the Council can legally raise each year without a citizen's vote.
If the Council wants to give this money to people truly in need, why not just award it to the Opportunity Council, or another deserving non-profit with desperate needs?

Recently, a local economist described such inherently futile efforts as examples of the ‘Lake Wobegone Scenario’.
Like that fictional Minnesota town, where ‘all the women are strong, the men are good-looking and the children are above average’, this ordinance rests on a false ‘Alice in Wonderland’ economic theory that suggests we can simply tax and spend our way out of complex problems.
That is wishful thinking.

The most troubling part of this process was that it was mostly conducted in a few Council discussions.
Although these are public meetings, this is typically not an effective way to meaningfully involve those citizens who will later have to pay for resulting programs.
Since this measure is to be funded from existing accounts already earmarked for other purposes, additional revenues will need to be found to make up the shortfall - meaning still more taxes.
It is ironic that the Council was also expected to approve a one- percent property tax increase the same night this ordinance was so hastily passed.
If both measures had passed, over half of the property tax increase would have already been committed to paying for this ordinance.

A wider and more candid discussion, involving the community, might have revealed, and avoided, an unstated objective; that of establishing the precedent of a higher minimum wage to give organized labor a greater leverage in bargaining with the city.
Hidden agendas like this are sometimes disguised as ‘Trojan Horses’, designed to finesse the approval of ‘unintended consequences’.
The understandable reluctance of city officials to openly discuss this sensitive, and potentially very costly, aspect of the issue may have unintentionally aided and abetted this tactic.
Backers were simply able to pass this ordinance with a combination of friendly persuasion and old-fashioned arm-twisting.

Everyone knows it is the duty of public officials to avoid conflicts of interest and not violate the appearance of fairness when engaged in official business.
Our state sunshine laws are designed specifically to insure their accountability to the public.
Unless a consistently careful and balanced approach is followed on all public business, criticism and distrust are invited.

Aristotle was right when he considered politics to be a practical, but inexact science.
Unfortunately, politics has also become a symbolic dirty word because of adverse public perceptions.
Good perceptions are difficult to gain, but easy to lose.
Much more public discussion and deliberation is needed to make effective progress on this important issue.
Additional taxes, if required, should be raised by a public vote.
--------------------------------------
Two years later, in December of 2004, I considered proposing this ordinance be rescinded as one item on the list of budget cuts to be considered for the following year's budget.
But, because no one really knew how much this 'Living Wage' Ordinance actually costs the City, and that four Council votes were still there to defeat the idea, I didn't bother.
But, here were my thoughts anyway:

[Recall that this measure was passed 4-3 after hot debate, even though its estimated effect was to add approximately $56k in costs in the first year]

I continue to have serious concerns in several areas regarding this ordinance:

1.The rates themselves, while well intended, are artificially high for our local economy.
The skills which warrant such rates are already demanding them in the marketplace, and without City subsidy.

2. The City has no mechanisms for:

• capturing the actual additional costs being incurred each year, whether they occur in the General Fund or not

• insuring that contractors & subcontractors are actually using this ordinance to develop bids for City work

• insuring that contractors & subcontractors are actually paying their employees these rates

• insuring that Whatcom County and Bellingham residents are the primary recipients of these wages

• insuring that recipients are truly heads of household, permanent employees or other classes of people needing such financial assistance

• regularly auditing the effects of this ordinance and paying for these costs

3. The rates have the overall effect of increasing costs without any discernable increase in the services received.
In so doing, they may amount to a gifting of scarce public funds to unknown persons

4. The rates themselves exceed other rates paid to City employees, thereby causing salary compression and potential discontent in the work force

5. The precedent set by establishing these rates has the effect of giving more leverage to collective bargaining units, which then tends to increase pressures on escalation of wages and benefits generally

In my mind, this is not responsible legislation and it adds unnecessary costs to our already overburdened General Fund.
I don't know the exact provisions of reconsidering ordinances, but recommend further researching this question.
--------------------------
Unfortunately, the 'Living Wage' Ordinance still stands to this day, costing taxpayers an unknown amount for unknown services.

I wonder if the new Council and Administration will do anything about rescinding this Ordinance and relegating to the scrap heap of bad law where it belongs?

Budgets 101: An Introduction to the Public Purse

Today was a good day. My alma mater won over Georgia Tech and I door-belled about 150 homes in my neighborhood for Dan Pike and Stan Snapp.
At my age, I need physical exercise and I got some walking up and down the hill in my neighborhood [Puget].
The weather cooperated too.
It wasn't exactly hiking Ptarmigan Ridge, but maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
--------
Now Budgets 101.
Boring, but essential.
Especially if you believe its necessary to pay attention to such things.

The City Council has two major duties;
Pass legislation and approve the City budget.

That's it. Anything else is window dressing.

I'll bet some folks didn't know that.
They may think Council members exist mainly to handle complaints, grant wishes, and generally make the Mayor do what the populace [like that word?] wants.
Wrong, but only just.

Of course, there are other important role that Councilors [like that term?] can play!
And, we do.
Some members more than others.

Back to Budget matters.

In 2004, I was honored with the role of Council President.
Little did I know what that might entail!

One thing it entailed was enduring the 'will of Council', the four votes that can take you to places you don't want to go!

With that in mind, here is an article the erstwhile Herald reported on 11/24/2004:
-----------------------
Tight budget splits City Council 

John Stark, The Bellingham Herald

The city of Bellingham is facing a year-end showdown over its 2005 budget as Mayor Mark Asmundson and the City Council debate the best ways to cut costs even as they raise property taxes.

On Tuesday, in a series of straw votes during a contentious three-hour meeting, four council members - Terry Bornemann, Louise Bjornson, Gene Knutson and Barbara Ryan - approved a series of major budget changes that caught both Asmundson and Council President John Watts off guard:

• After a strenuous public campaign by firefighters, the four nixed a plan that would have eliminated one fire engine while adding one emergency medical services unit. That shift would have left the city with six engines and three ambulances while saving $100,000 a year.

• The four also indicated support for placing an emergency medical services levy before voters one more time, probably in the spring. Such a property tax measure failed in a countywide vote in 2003 and in a citywide vote Nov. 2.

• In a departure from decades of budget policy, the four approved a shift in the allocation of city sales tax money, moving about $320,000 out of the $20 million street fund and into the general fund.

• The four also approved cutting $30,000 in hotel and motel tax funding from the Bellingham Whatcom Chamber of Commerce and $50,000 from the Bellingham Whatcom Convention and Visitors Bureau, shifting those sums to the Whatcom Museum of History & Art. The strain of having to choose from a menu of unpopular alternatives appears to be leading to bitterness. A council once accused of being a seven-vote rubber stamp for the mayor is now at odds with him over budget policy, and the council itself is split 4-3 on taxation and spending issues.

"I was as mad last night as I have ever been on the council," Watts said Wednesday.

Asmundson said he and city department heads had done a lot of work presenting council members with a list containing more than $2 million in possible budget cuts for them to consider. He questioned the wisdom of the alternative cuts that the four council members came up with.

Besides saving money, the fire department shift would be a more sensible use of resources, since fires now number in the hundreds while emergency medical services are dispatched thousands of times each year, Asmundson said.

The street fund is already below the level needed to adequately maintain existing streets and build new ones, Asmundson said.

And the cuts to the chamber and visitors' bureau mean less money for tourism promotion, which pays off in tax revenue and other economic benefits to the city, Asmundson said.

Watts agreed. He said he joined Bjornson, Ryan and Bornemann in voting for a property tax increase two weeks ago because he thought other council members would join him in making more spending cuts before the budget process was done.

By shifting money instead of making cuts, the city will face an even bigger budget problem next year, Watts said.

"This will be four years in a row of temporizing measures, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul," Watts said. "We have created what could be the mother of all train wrecks next year. ... Everybody wants to keep the services, but the connection has not been made that to keep the services we need to find more funding."

If the council passes a budget ordinance at its next meeting Dec. 6 by a 4-3 margin, Asmundson could block it with a veto that would require five votes to override.

After Tuesday's three-and-a-half-hour budget session, Watts said he told Asmundson, "If you've got one grain of guts and common sense, you'll use your veto power."

Asmundson said he was studying the situation and it was premature to talk about a veto.

Council member Bornemann blamed the mayor for his preliminary budget that assumed the city would have $1.6 million from the emergency medical services levy. Failure of the levy late in the budget process left council members scrambling for solutions, Bornemann said.

Bornemann also portrayed that vote as justifying his support of keeping fire department staffing at its current configuration, with two EMS units. If voters wanted more, they could have voted for the levy, he said.

But he also expressed hope that the current budget situation will help an EMS levy get voter approval on the third try.

"If it doesn't pass, then the engine company will be gone," Bornemann said. "There won't be any way out of it for the following year."
------------------------
You know what? I'm still mad about that summarily arrogant action!

The apparatus in question had not moved in a 'time-critical' situation since 1991!
Yet, $100 k was allocated to it's full staffing!
Are you kidding me?

Welcome to Budgets 101!

All, 'sins of the past aside', budget time is serious time.
It is the time that Departments put their needs in writing.
It is the time that Council goals get incorporated into the City budget.
It is the time that the public needs to pay attention!
------------------
Now, take a deep breath and pay attention.

The City of Bellingham has earned national recognition for three Important things related to taking care of the public purse:

Clean audits from the State of Washington for eight years, starting in 2000.

Recognition as a Municipality that presents its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] in an understandable fashion.

Recognition as a Municipality that presents its budget clearly and understandably.

Thanks are due for these achievements to Therese Holm, City Finance Director.

Bet you didn't know that, did you?
--------------------
Now, what about next year?

The City MUST approve a budget that is in balance - by State law.

And, Council must approve the next year's budget by this year's end.

That is the process that is now in progress. The Council now intends to adopt a budget for 2008 on 11/26/2007, the day before our next elected Mayor takes office.

That may be enough for now.
Let's talk again tomorrow.