A Sad Day For America

George Washington's Farewell Address *[see below] warned against certain dangers to our Constitution by political factions;

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

------
Our governmental shutdown is inexcusable and hurts everyone.
That a few political ideologues have conspired to inflict this calamity on our -and their- country is incredibly stupid. There is no other word to describe it.

House Speaker John Boehner has shown such a lack of leadership and courage that he has literally become a parody of a power broker, worthy of disdain. 
Small wonder Congress's 'approval' rating is 10% or less.
Care to guess who is included in that 10%?
Mr Boehner, why won't you even allow a simple vote on the budget?
Be honest now and try not to engage in self-serving spin; is holding onto your job title more important than having the courage to buck those radicals who covet it?

But, what goes around, comes around. 
Republicans have made their nest and now must live in it.
Maybe, these self-styled Tories will come to see the error of their ways, do their job and let our government return to normalcy, but don't count on it!
The 'my way or the highway' attitude exhibited against nearly every goal or achievement advocated by President Obama since his election, has no useful place in a representative democracy.
It is a juvenile, divisive and ultimately self-defeating strategy that should not be rewarded, but instead discouraged.

Hopefully, the current impasse will soon be over, but how can anyone claim victory?
George Washington would likely shed a tear.
----------------

* Reading in Congress

In January 1862, during the American Civil War, thousands of Philadelphia residents signed a petition requesting the Congress to commemorate the 130th anniversary of Washington's birth by reading his Farewell Address "in one or the other of the Houses of Congress.” First read in the United States House of Representatives in February 1862, the reading of Washington's address became a tradition in both houses by 1899.

In 1984, however, the House of Representatives abandoned the practice. The Senate continues this tradition into modern times, observing Washington's Birthday by selecting a member of the Senate, alternating between political parties each year, to read the address aloud on the Senate floor.

When Right Is Wrong

What's in a word?
Multiple meanings, spellings, pronunciations, nuances.
Right or Wrong, Right or Left, etc.

Right-wing politics -euphemistically called 'conservative- does not easily support change, especially so-called 'progressive' change. 
That is largely the case with the current threat of shutting down government unless 'ObamaCare' is repealed. 
Wishful thinking at best by those more interested in silly political posturing!

I hope Congress does the 'right' thing, and they probably will, eventually. 
However this exercise turns out, it is an example of putting selfish interest above the common good, at least in my view.
--------
A representative democracy is generally accepted as a proven way -if not the best way- to insure that the will of the people is reflected in law and policy. 
But, this is not guaranteed; it depends upon those elected doing their best to the benefit of not only their 'constituents', but the entire population. 
Unfortunately, not every elected representative has received this memo, much less honored it both in spirit and deed. 
That is not a new problem and is likely to be unresolved unless we make known our expectations of those we chose to represent us. 
Freedom is not free, especially unrestricted freedom. Certain constraints are necessary in the name of fairness, equality and civility. 

Our founders were amazingly prescient about governance, especially practical and sustainable governance that continually seeks to reflect the will and best interests of people - all people. 
But, they weren't perfect in defining which people are to be included; which is why our Constitution has always been subject to change by adjustment to include non-property owners, blacks and people of color, women as well as those with diverse beliefs, religions and lifestyles. 

But, these changes have not come easily and remain subject to debate among those who prefer to keep those special privileges enjoyed by our 'prescient' founding fathers, mostly wealthy white male property owners. 
Are today's elected representatives much different? 
Yes, and no. 
While our current Congress is more diverse, there remains a large contingent who are very wealthy and many others who seek to become so in currying favor from the hordes of lobbyists and 'special interests' who crowd Washington, DC. In such an environment, the temptation must be strong to represent selfish interests above all others.

If government is to be of the people, for the people and by the people, then it is necessary to have every person's needs, aspirations and rights equitably addressed, not just a favored few among many. 
But, that has become increasingly problematic with the ideological stances being taken lately by those who seem to value their own election/reelection goals above those of the good of the entire population. 

The founders intended to have a 'virtuous' government and to encourage 'virtue' in its citizens. 
Is this happening? 
Will it likely happen without continuous effort? 
How will this effort be generated? 

If our government is intended to reflect us, the citizens, is this actually happening? 
If our current government does actually reflect its current citizenry, what does that say about us? 
Are we so occupied with distractions that we allow our representatives to act as they are, then play the blame game when things don't go to suit us? 

If that is the case, the founders might not be very happy with us, unless with subliminal thought, they expected a future return to their era, where only rich, white property owners controlled things for their own selfish interests. 
Doesn't it seem that the rich and powerful have much more clout than they deserve in our government?

Without the tyranny of a foreign monarch, the threat from foreign enemies, the fear from foreign terrorists, the competition from foreign economies, the inconvenient menaces of nature itself, we are left with the troubling dilemma of just dealing with ourselves. 
As Pogo said, 'the enemy is us.'

I hope that Americans, collectively, will reclaim our rightful role in determining what is in our best interests, then require those who represent us to seek reasonable, effective means to achieve it.
That includes providing the US Government the adequate means to maintain its essential services, despite any ideological obstacles that arise.

Our representatives need to be held responsible and accountable for their votes and non-votes!

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 25

Non-reimbursed Government Expenses 

Governments at all levels are continuing to incur significant expenses related to permitting and administering the GPT proposed project, that are not paid by the Applicant. 

For instance, Whatcom County has spent thousands of dollars to date on activity even before permitting officially began, yet charged the Applicant only the $2500 fee generally applicable to 'normal' permit applications. 
For an exceptionally complicated project containing major wider implications and potential harms, the standard fee is woefully inadequate and essentially represents a public gift to a private entity. 
This practice is grossly unfair to taxpayers and needs to be mitigated.
Although law does require the Applicant to pay for EIS costs, this does not necessarily include all the considerable staff time from each of the public agencies involved, not to speak of the untold hours of voluntary, uncompensated, citizen time in even expressing legitimate concerns for possible inclusion in the EIS.

I request that Whatcom County immediately undertake to assess the costs of these uncompensated services and make this information available to County officials and the public at large, as a first step in redressing this obvious inequity. 
Without such information, neither County officials nor citizens will even know the extent of any financial burden being silently foisted upon the public treasury. 
Such abuse must be identified and curtailed, in this case, by County action.

If these types of subsidies are routinely granted to Applicants during the initial permitting process, just imagine what other, much greater financial demands might become expected and imposed upon local governments should the project be approved! 
The Applicant's claims of additional jobs and tax revenues could easily be dwarfed by the costs of required new public infrastructure, such as grade-separated crossings all along the BNSF railway that bisects multiple municipalities and greatly increases safety and convenience problems with citizens and businesses alike. 

Please consider these uncompensated costs -both current and potential future- as important factors in fairly weighing costs versus benefits.

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 17

Impacts on Property Values, Taxes & Levels of Service

As a property owner, taxpayer and user of public services, I am concerned about the possible adverse impacts on the three listed topics above from a dramatic increase in coal trains passing through Bellingham to service the proposed GPT facility.

I request that a comprehensive evaluation be conducted to determine to what level these three topics might be affected by an additional 18 coal trains per day.
The results of this evaluation need to be incorporated into an overall cost-benefit analysis for GPT.

The value of my home will likely be reduced for the reason that there are no municipalities similar to Bellingham that I know of which have had property values increase as a result of significantly greater freight train traffic, particularly 1.5 mile long, unit coal trains.
Real estate professionals know -and often say- that property values depend on three things; location, location and location.
Conversely, railroads have been often associated with generally depressing property values, especially once a town or City is well established.
In fact, the term 'shanty town' is used to describe some unfortunate communities that met this fate.

The taxes I pay to Whatcom County & Bellingham may need to be raised more than usual because of the need to raise funds to mitigate problems the added trains will likely bring; things like grade-separated crossings to maintain normal safety for citizens, noise barriers, pedestrian crossings and the like.

Levels of service for police, fire and EMS may be reduced because of blocked rail crossings, leaving these externalized costs to be borne by citizens and businesses, not GPT.
Maintaining adequate and customary levels of service will likely account for a significant proportion of otherwise necessary tax increases.
GPT related activities will add to this problem by requiring services not now needed, due to accidents, emergencies and general congestion directly connected with GPT operations.

The sum of all these impacts will end up being borne by taxpayers, unless substantial mitigation can be obtained from GPT investors and partners.
This amount needs to be determined during the EIS, so that any mitigation can be quantified, assessed and exacted from the Applicant.

Politics: Campaign Boost or Cannon Fodder?

A different subject for today, likely motivated by excessive Olympics and renewed attention to Presidential politics.

Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan amounts to a battlefield promotion from a boot camp hotshot to a combat lieutenant. That metaphor isn't literal because neither candidate has one iota of actual military experience, despite their mutual coziness with neocon thinking that advocates an ever expanding defense budget. Oddly, that preference seems to impact fiscal budget balancing in a way that is undeniable; it leads one to the conclusion that without either defense cuts or tax increases, the only changes likely to be seriously considered are cuts to social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education and environmental and consumer protection. Good luck with that plan!

For all of Romney's vagueness, gaffes and flip floppiness, this VP selection begins to tangibly box him in because it probably reflects the way he is really thinking more than anything he's said to date. Why, even Muhammad Ali couldn't dance his way out of this corner, and he was really good at it!

It's the way Ryan thinks that appeals to Romney, plus his fresh personality and demonstrated ability to charm while presenting daring ideas that most politicians wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Ryan's core values seem very similar to Romney's, but his candor is much superior - something that can only boost Romney's own deficiency, at least temporarily.

Paul Ryan is less than 6 weeks younger then my son, also 42. That's also the age of Mitt Romney's oldest son. Generation gaps that wide between Presidential candidates and their VP choices are pretty rare. Why is that? Most likely because of the experience factor and the maturity that comes over time from dealing with life's challenges, not just noodling over adolescent notions instilled by reading Ayn Rand. The technical qualifications for VP are pretty minimal; per wikianswers.com, the following:

"The vice-president must be qualified to be President. According to the twelfth amendment of the Constitution, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." In order to be President, a person must be a native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the united states for at least 14 years. From a practical standpoint, candidates for vice-president are usually chosen to balance the ticket or to placate a faction of the party which lost its bid to choose the presidential nominee. The vice-presidential candidate may be chosen from a geographical or demographical area in which the presidential candidate seems weaker."

Ahh, the same qualifications as the President. That makes sense. Does young Ryan have what Americans expect from someone 'one heartbeat away' from the Presidency? That is debatable, even though not nearly as debatable as John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin! But, in the end, the electorate will decide in its wisdom who wins or loses. I believe the outcome will become known before the elections, just as Romney suspected he needed a boost similar to the 2008 'Hail Mary' that John McCain -an admitted risk taker- threw in such reckless desperation.

Ryan's selection does have certain contrasts and symmetry to it. Ideologically, he is similar to Romney. Both men have obsessive focus on money, budgets and business. But, Ryan is more candid and specific about details of his proposals, while Romney prefers a more secretive, vague and opportunistic pandering approach. Both men are well set financially, which casts serious doubt on their ability to legitimately empathize with those less fortunate. Romney claims business skills and success, but Ryan essentially has none; only 14 years in the House of Representatives - which still qualifies him for a life pension and benefits most people would envy. And, Wisconsin law allows him to run for re-election while also running for VP! Nice.

It is very interesting to speculate what may transpire when Congress has to address its enormous and growing deficit. Both Romney and Ryan like to criticize Obama and the Democrats for all our country's ills, and that's fair game, even though hyperbole reigns. 
Romney appears clueless about what to do, no doubt partly because he is so invested in tax loopholes himself, as a very rich man with knowledge of and access to the best legal and tax minds available on this planet. Can't risk upsetting that applecart, can we?

Ryan thinks he knows what to do and has come out with one grandiose plan after another, each one watered down because of justified resistance to only 'supply-side' economic approaches. He has had chances to support the Bowles-Simpson Plan, Congress's own deficit reduction sessions and the 'Gang of Six' ideas for compromise, but in each case has wimped out and refused to become part of even a partial substantial solution. How does that work out against his stated goals? My way or the highway? That ain't a solution either!

At this point, the Democrats do have some deficit leverage, but only if they use it! One sure way to get defense budget cuts to balance other necessary reductions is to simply let the US 'fall of the cliff' and not agree to any budget or deficit policy package until after next year. Then, assuming they still have a majority in the Senate, they could force concessions from Ryan and his cohorts to reinstate the Bush tax cuts and lower taxes on everyone except the wealthiest 1%, in exchange for other budget compromises. I hope they will do that, because that is the only message the R's are likely to respond to. Brinksmanship? Yes, but what is our real alternative to more stupid gridlock in Washington, DC?

Either Ryan beats the odds and becomes VP to his new adoptive father, Romney, or he retains his safe seat in Congress as a rising star with better experience, and an enhanced retirement benefit package. Can't beat that with a stick, can you? Particularly for a young right-wing ideologue with an atypical pleasing manner, who got temporarily unplugged from a fast track blaze of glory. Platoon leader, maybe; General, never!

Local Elections Results & Related Topics

"Bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." - George Washington

-----------------------------------------

Today, we celebrate the results of our local elections, which did produce some positive results in my view:

• Kelli Linville will be our next Mayor, by a margin of 164 votes - not exactly an overwhelming mandate, but good enough to give her the chance to do better for our community than her 1-term predecessor, whose political naiveté, ego and self-serving style managed to irritate more people than it satisfied in a series of missteps, largely of his own making.

• Cathy Lehman, a first-time candidate for City Council -Ward 3, was an overwhelming [2 to 1] winner and promises to be an intelligent and energetic voice on the issues which matter most to our community.

• Christina Maginnis, also a first-time candidate for County Council lost a closely contested race with a 12-year incumbent, but forcefully demonstrated that seat will be in play in future elections, and that her opponent in on notice to more carefully consider his obviously special interest agenda.

• Almost overlooked was Jack Louws' early and clear triumph over Doug Ericksen for County Executive. Louws is a proven elected official and an honest, reliable person with excellent credentials for this top job.

• While I am no fan of Pete Kremen, it is a good thing that he defeated Tony Larson for a County Council seat. Lesser of two evils.

There are other results which can be accessed here, but these 5 races are the ones I watched with most interest.

-----------------------

Before launching into relatively simple local budget matters, aren't we lucky to have such stellar examples of courage and ability to work together as the 'Super Committee'? Note the advice one CNN columnist reports that George Washington might have given the 'Super Committee'.

-------------------

One of the issues of enduring importance to Bellingham is its municipal budget, which has been -and remains- stressed by the fiscal hard times. Not only is the overall budget critical, but so is each of the sub-budgets of which it is comprised. The workings and interrelationships of these various sub-funds are sometimes quite difficult to understand, but the City Council must make the decisions to keep these budgets - and the overall budget - in balance, thereby protecting the City's credit rating and the trust of its citizens.

There has been one notable occasion in which the City Council and the soon-to-be ex-Mayor have knowingly violated this trust; that was the appallingly unwise decision to purchase the entire so-called Chuckanut Ridge property, without a current appraisal and without sufficient funds designated for that purpose - and despite clear directions as to the proper use of the Greenways 3 funds, voluntarily voted by citizens!

Instead, the Mayor -preferring to listen to his vocal partisan supporters- deliberately, and with much fanfare, led the Council into making a decision that expressly violates the distinct words of another admonition by none other than the Father of our Country, George Washington in his farewell address:

'.....adding to their sense of urgency, determining not to ungenerously throw "upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Perhaps, our new Mayor WILL have the courage to ask the erstwhile Council to do the right thing and sell sufficient of the unneeded property to bring this ill-considered purchase into budgetary balance, thereby honoring the wishes of citizens, volunteers, staff and prior elected officials.

Cleaning up someone else's messes are never fun, but this cleanup is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Greenways program, universally appreciated by the public.

-------------------------

Politics: Finding The Sweet Spot Sour?

Somewhere between the lazy liberals and the constipated conservatives, there's got to be a happier middle ground.

Today, an old acquaintance whom I seldom see, chanced upon meeting me at a local business that deals in technical toys, namely cell phones and accessories.

He recognized me from behind before I even saw him, possibly because he does follow local politics, including my wee stint in that arena.

He asked me if I missed being in politics, to which I replied 'yes, like I miss the measles'!

A little strong maybe, but what I meant was I missed being an active part of important decision-making.

With measles, one does develop a certain immunity, but with politics - not!

Once it gets in your blood, it remains there at some tangible concentration.

Somehow, this guy suggested that I was known as more of a 'radical moderate' in his thinking.

And, you know, he was right!

Actually, I was somewhat flattered by that label, because that is also how I choose to see myself.

He did pretty much nail me, for better or worse.

Of course, I did also manage to mention this blog, if he ever wanted to test his perception by things I've bothered to write and stand for, sometimes rather forcefully.

He may do that, or not; either way I do believe he actually got what I like to think is consistently aiming at whatever might be called the 'sweet spot' in deciding issues - particularly the hard ones that set lasting precedents that most folks seem to prefer over the long haul.

I thank him for that!

----------------

Recently, our local trusted City officials managed to not find anything close to a sweet spot in their less than admirable decision to pretend to be the Federal Government and purchase the property known as Chuckanut Ridge with money they do not have!

Yes, that's what I said - money they did not actually have to spend, $3.5 Million of it!

They did it because of silly politics and that undeniable urge to become heroes - cheaply, without earning it.

Remember that old E F Hutton Ad; 'We make money the old-fashioned way - we EARN It'!

Lord knows, I've done my best to argue, advise, cajole & reason with our current City Council and current Mayor on this matter, but I have failed - and miserably.

What they can't see themselves, all the king's horses won't lead them to understand, much less do.

That is truly too bad, not just for them, but for every citizen who expects consistent, good & fair decision-making from their elected officials.

So, what else can I do?

Roundly castigate these bums as incompetent laggards?

Continue to request better accountability?

Try to inform people of the unacceptable gap between what has happened and what should have?

Lower my expectations?

Actively campaign for replacing those officials who are so unlucky as to have political opponents?

Actively seek candidates to compete against those with no opposition?

If you think the answer to all the above is 'yes', you'd be correct!

So, let's get started.

• Pike as Mayor has been a major disappointment who has promised, or seemed to promise, way too many things that he has not been able to deliver. Apparently being Mayor is not one of his 'skill sets'. Imagine a guy who has just waded through almost 4 years of fiscal austerity - including threatening to veto a minimal, routine 1% property tax increase - then sticking the public [us] with an unfunded Greenways purchase of about $3.5 Million - equivalent to a 17% property tax increase! Of course, there are several other beefs that I have with Pike, like the damage he has done to the City's relationships with Whatcom County, the Port of Bellingham, State of Washington, various businesses, etc. Plus, the loss of several very qualified City Department Heads & all their institutional memory and incurring the costs of recruiting replacements; the lack of tangible progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the gross lack of rapport with valuable City employees, etc. One or two other things, he argues a lot, always seeming to need the last word. And, he likes to be seen leading the parade - never mind there isn't one. Ever noticed that? These things are not merely matters of smarts, but of attitude & judgement - traits that are not readily discernible at first glance, especially with relative newcomers! Is there any wonder that I am strongly supporting Linville, because I know she can do a much better job on all these fronts!

• Buchanan hasn't impressed me much either, despite his rather ordinary credentials. He seems sleepy & doesn't do much to attract sincere plaudits; but maybe that's more of a strategy to keep a low profile and stay off the radar, except when the urge to pander becomes overwhelming? Its often a winning formula around here; not to create controversy, even when it might be the right thing to do. His opponent, Cathy Lehman, is the real thing, and deserves a chance to demonstrate it. Her work ethic, energy, knowledge of important issues, true caring and effective pursuit of key endorsements and voters, earn her my unqualified support, and I hope, yours!

• Fleetwood, unfortunately, has turned out to be essentially, a nebbish-like cipher. Despite good credentials and visibility in the community, he very often fails to develop positions that are well-defined or compelling. Worse, he seems to suffer from a lack of self-confidence, backbone & energy, but an overabundance of a sense of elite entitlement - a bad combination for anyone seeking to earn the public trust. His opponent, Larry Farr, is a straight shooter, has the ability and served this community in a number of volunteer capacities, though none elective, so far. [pun intended] From observing his years serving with the Transportation Commission and its predecessors, it is obvious he can do the job well and is deserving of public support, including mine.

• Two Council Members, Knutson & Weiss, have no opponents and will skate through the elections for another term. That's particularly too bad for Knutson, who relies on simple populism way to often; you know always against raising the money to pay for all the stuff he votes for, that kind of thing - Chuckanut Ridge is only the latest example. Also, his tendency to say one thing and do another is off-putting, as is his periodic grandstanding, at which he has clear ability. And, as one of the 4 co-conspirators who almost killed Greenways back in 2005/06, he participated in an illegal connivance that he finally owned up to - 3 years later - when most folks who might have known had forgotten. Knutson should have excused himself from even voting on the CR purchase! [as should have Bornemann, who never confessed] Think about it; with two recusals, the CR vote would have been 3 to 2, not enough for passage.

• Two years hence, the positions occupied by Bornemann, Lilliquist, Fleetwood [only if reelected] & Snapp [probably not running again] will need to be filled again. The first two need opponents if they run, as does Fleetwood if he's still there. And, also time for a new face in Ward 4. That makes four good candidates are needed. Anyone game?

That's about it from here for now, but stay tuned for a little reprise to Tuesday's Herald story on the decision made Monday night to 'kick the can down the road' on actually paying for their purchase of the entire, discounted pricey CR property.

Cool, leave the $3.5 Million mess for others to clean up later; and maybe the stupid public won't even notice!

Is it any wonder this country got so deep in debt?

Hey, you know this crap has to start somewhere; this is just an example at the local level - Bellingham, the City of subdued something. Accountability?

On that cheery note, as Bugs Bunny used to say, that's all folks....

-----------------------

Greenways: Comfortable? What Say You, Cardinal?

“Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him” - Cardinal Richelieu
---------------
Today's public meeting seeks input on how to actually finance an $8.23 million purchase the City Council has already agreed to make.
Doesn't that seem a little backward to you?

But, the Council is entitled to a little fun, isn't it?
And now, we -the public- get to have the fun of helping them out of a really expensive predicament!
Sounds fair to me, as long as the Council not only listens, but takes the action recommended by common sense.

But, that does beg the question; why didn't they just listen to common sense BEFORE they went out and bought something they couldn't afford, had no reason -except political pressure- to swallow whole, and violated the trust of many in our community in their collective ability to make a rational and prudent decision?
Just asking....

Maybe a few written responses will help shed light on the mindset of our erstwhile Council Members.
--------------
Back on September 4, I had received this prompt response from the Honorable Council Member Michael Lilliquist to questions I had forwarded earlier:
[Note, he gave me more than six lines]

John,

Excellent questions, with some answers not yet available and still in the works. We have our job cut out for us.

If you watched City Council that night, you'll see I pointed out the problem of the $3.3 million+ funding gap, so that it would be out in the open from the start. No one is ignoring this.

You'll also recall that I lost some southside support for refusing to make the "$8 million dollar promise." And we did not use all $8 million, only $4.5 as in the most recent Greenways DRAFT plan (not approved, nor officially even passed by Greenway Comm). That leaves $3.5 for other past and future southside acquisitions, to say nothing of the $12 million for northside acquisitions. I'm comfortable with those numbers.

Yes, we have some big unanswered questions. But to be clear, I think this is a good purchase and a huge step forward. All things considered, $8.32 million for all 85 acres was commonly considered beyond our reach. We caught a lucky break.

Let me put it in a nutshell, if I can:

The question is not "should the City buy Chuckanut Ridge?" That question has already been answered when the Council voted "yes." We also have $5 million in appropriate funds, so we also know how most of the property will be paid for. That's not in question either.

So the real question is a narrow one: How do we cover the approximately $3.5 million remainder, and do so in a way that is realistic and does not compromise other important greenways and open space needs across the entire city?

Discussion to follow! :)

Yours,
Michael
from Blackberry of
Michael Lilliquist

------------------
Nothing new here, except the 'being comfortable' part.

I also received a copy of the Honorable Council Member Michael Lilliquist's response from two other constituents:
[Again, much more than six lines!]

[REDACTED],

Both of you tried to contact me prior to Monday night's vote, but unfortunately I was busy and did not receive your calls and/or have time to call you back. (I had a Lake Whatcom policy group meeting in the morning, then lunch, and then straight to the afternoon work session, etc.) I ask for your understanding.

As you know by now, the City Council passed the financing plan that came forward to us (including the loan), but we deleted the language that implied repayment of the loan from "all funds for park acquisitions" or some similar, all-inclusive language. I felt that that language promised a repayment scheme that we had not yet discussed let alone agreed upon. Being presented with an immediate purchase opportunity, we seized the opportunity -- albeit via a process that did not follow the usual order of things.

As you also know, as Finance committee chair I now find myself unexpectedly in the position to lead the discussion and exploration of repayment options for the $3.4 million interfund loan. I am improvising the process as I go along, in the hopes of taking the time (now that we have it) to follow an open and constructive public process. To that end, I have scheduled a special work session of the committee for next Thursday at 11:15 am in the Mayor's Boardroom. This will certainly not be the last meeting or the only opportunity for public input. One of my goals at the work session is to establish an outline of process the committee would like to follow. For my part, I am asking people to submit written comments, addressed to the whole council, with attn: to the Finance committee in particular. I want to establish a public record of ideas and comments, for all to see.

As I said on Monday, I believe this is not the time for a debate about the purchase or the purchase price. The Council has decided. Nor is this the time for another discussion of the Greenways levy or of Council's thoughts and intention years ago. That, too, has been decided by the current Council: $4.5 million from Greenways has been allocated and spent. The Council has decided.

The matter before us, as I see it, is both smaller and more difficult. The task before us is how to repay the loan in a way that respects the voter-approved Greenways allocation scheme and that does not harm important interests throughout our community. It is smaller, because now we have only a $3.4 million loan to consider. It is more difficult, because we have already used the funds available in Greenways and Park impact fees, and in my view we cannot draw water from those wells again.

I thought you might also appreciate hearing some of my personal thoughts on the matter, which I wrote in a reply to email from [REDACTED]:

"And so [on Monday] I drew a clear (I hope) distinction between the financing the purchase on the one hand and the repayment of the loan on the other hand. Last night we accomplished the former, and we have yet to grapple with the latter. That's the next step.

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that we have "no repayment plan." Rather, I'd say that we have many repayment options, and no agreement yet on which to follow. At present we have at least three "fall back" options, some of which are not particularly attractive. The first option is to dig deeper into Greenways funds, which I oppose and which I believe a majority of this or any subsequent Council will reject. The Council (I sincerely believe) will not sacrifice the needs of other parts of our community. Period.

The second repayment option is a subsequent Greenways levy, which could retire a portion of the loan as part of broader package. As I am hearing people, one widely held view is that greater emphasis should be placed on development and maintenance. Each Greenways levy has been unique. I can imagine a fourth levy that is perhaps less than half the size of the current one, with maybe 1/10th devoted to retiring the debt, and the other 90% directed to other worthy purposes. But this is just my out-loud thinking, and I know that some on the Council and in the community don't like the idea of using a new levy to retire old debt. So let's call this 1/2 of a fall-back repayment option.

The third fall-back repayment option is sale of some portion of the property (or perhaps some other South neighborhood public property in the same general area) to recoup the balance owed. I see this as a valid option, but also as a measure of last resort. It has the advantage of being entirely within our control: we can rezone and repackage and draw boundaries as best serves the community. This is why I see that there is very little "down-side risk:" we possess valuable collateral that we can use to prevent any other "worse case scenario" from occurring. The public is protected; our basic Council responsibility is met. Also, given the current down market in real estate, there is every reason to hold off such a "fall back" plan for a few years. In fact, even if we wanted to sell some property, it is probably best to wait a while.

In other words, it is not that "we have all the time in the world" but it is true that since we are in control of the property, the Council does not need to act in haste. We can create the time and space to evaluate our options, to raise private funds, to seek institutional support or grants, to evaluate special assessment districts, etc. As Finance chair, I can't solve this problem alone, but I can re-start a public discussion and seek a full range of input and opinion. We know the "fall back" options. Now we need to hear the "move forward" options! Please direct any and all constructive suggestions to the Council's finance committee."

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your suggestions and ideas on this subject.

Yours,

Michael Lilliquist
Bellingham City Council, 6th Ward
360-920-1583

---------------------
It seems to me that Mr Lilliquist has already figured everything out, that he really doesn't need more ideas from the public, and that if we all just cooled it and let things ride, ALL WILL BE MAGICALLY RESOLVED SOMETIME IN THE DIM FUTURE, EITHER BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE _OR MORE LIKELY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PRIORITIES!

I get it, Michael; you have no clue, no apology and no courage to settle this matter -in full- right now!
How's that for describing how COMFORTABLE I am with trusting you with screwing this up worse than it is now!

Please know that I am not singling only you out for criticism; the entire Council acted in very poor judgement on this matter!
Some have later admitted this, attributing it to 'buyer's remorse', or some other type of brain-fart.
Yours happened to be one of the more reasoned and candid responses, which I really do appreciate!
What I least appreciate is the arrogant silence and banal, on-camera C-Y-A pronouncements of some other members, which have mainly served to only make matters worse - our illustrious the Mayor included.
---------------------

Now that's off my chest, get on with spinning off sufficient property to balance the books on this poorly conceived acquisition.
No one really expected the City to acquire the entire property anyway.
It was only the depressed economic conditions that allowed the Bank to sell it for $8.23 million-still too big a bite to swallow.

Now, imagining property values to rise before unloading any part of it is called sheer speculation -something the City's fiscal policy has never called prudent.
Also, such a plan would AGAIN telegraph the City's intent and likely skew legitimate offers AGAIN!

Surely you can understand how this works by now, since all the ill-advised public jawboning by City officials about its intent to buy, undoubtedly acted to raise expectations of price that would be paid.
That was plain stupid, if not borderline illegal!
Even if the property value was believed to be relatively 'low', it is still outside the City's [prudent] ability to pay!

That's the exact kind of thinking that got us into the present dilemma!
Notice I said 'us', because you have now -unnecessarily- externalized this problem to every citizen in Bellingham.

I certainly hope this Council is NOT comfortable with its previous sorry decision; you are not elected to be comfortable!
You are elected to be uncomfortable, especially in making dumb decisions and not using normal advisory recommendations, or public input BEFORE committing more funds than you have on anything less than a true emergency.
----------------

OK, if selling an unneeded portion of the 82 acres does become officially recognized as the preferred option, here are a few ideas:

1. The entire property was purchased, which likely was the deal that was offered.
Now, that the City legally owns it, a rezone can be done much more easily, which would have to be done anyway for any portion that is to remain PUBLIC.
Some decisions must be made about what areas and acreage should remain protected as parks & wetlands.
There is a substantial portion -maybe 30%- that seems very well-suited for some development, and because it is inherently desirable property, it is valuable as undeveloped land.

Larger, attractive homes -already prevalent in the surrounding area- ought to be considered here.
Alternately, some affordable housing and/or charitable entities specializing in care/housing for disadvantaged citizens might be considered. [Habitat, Kulshan Land Trust, Halfway House, Homeless Shelter, Oxford House, etc
But, probably not the new County Jail, Public Works Palace or Mayor's Mansion.....

2. Along with this property comes a bundle of property rights, like development rights, timber rights, mineral rights, water rights, rights of way, etc.
These are valuable within themselves, especially the development rights -which apparently now total 739.
These can be sold in amounts to be determined and allocated to specific build able lots, or transferred [TDRs] somewhere else to a receiving area where higher density is more desirable [infill sites, waterfront, urban villages, UGAs, etc], or simply retired and rescinded.

Both designated lots and/or TDRs can be priced at market values to be purchased by anyone who might benefit [property owners, developers, charitable donations, conservation easements, various public uses and the like.
The main purpose of using marketable lots and TDRs is to recover value to the City to help pay down the excess debt incurred by this purchase.
Some simple arithmetic; 20 lots times $150,000 equals $3 million.
Fiddle with this to get the money needed!
Whatever gets built here pays its way, with low-impact standards required.
That's the deal, take it or leave it.

3. 'Other Sources' is too general a term.
REET money has got competing needs, so don't use it for something that is NOT needed.
Parks Impact Fees have already been tapped into big time, but is a few homes get built on excess property, why not also dedicate these PIFs?

A Local Improvement District [LID] might also work to ensure owners in the area are obligated to pay their fair share of costs toward roads, curbs & sidewalks, utilities, lighting, sanitary & storm sewers, and other amenities needed.

Donations would also be nice, but so far I haven't heard of much being volunteered by groups such as 'RD' or other vocal advocates.
Maybe selling inscribed bricks [like Fairhaven Village Green], commemorative icons [like Market Depot Square], benches [like Parks in multiple locations] would help raise a few bucks, too.

And don't forget naming rights!
How about 'Knutson's Kompromise Knoll', or 'Bornemann's Bog', or 'Ryan's Rock'?
Or, 'Fleetwood's Fir Fantasy', 'Buchanan's Botanic Bivouac', or 'Lilliquist's Little Lily Pond'?
Hey, what about 'Pike's Place'? Sorry, that's already sorta taken.
But, then again, how much could be raised from the principals, I mean by this idea anyway?

Seriously, if you can think of anything new that might work, please let me know -or better yet let our illustrious Council know that you expect much more than a list of ideas; you expect sufficient of these ideas to be ACTED upon to bring this expensive -and largely unnecessary acquisition- back within the realm of affordability!

Until then folks, we're stuck with a mostly unneeded property that has been euphemistically called 'ultimately and honestly, the solar system’s most splendid over- grown gravel pit.'
----------------------
"Show Me the Money"
- a well-known phrase uttered by characters in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire
================================

"Everything Counts" by Depeche Mode
Songwriters: GORE, MARTIN LEE

The handshake
Seals the contract
From the contract
There's no turning back
The turning point
Of a career
In Korea, being insincere
The holiday
Was fun packed
The contract
Still intact

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

It's a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts

The graph
On the wall
Tells the story
Of it all
Picture it now
See just how
The lies and deceit
Gained a little more power
Confidence
Taken in
By a sun tan
And a grin

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

It's a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts

Greenways: Largesse From The Public Treasury?

-----------------------
"....a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, via Professor Alexander Fraser Titler and others
-----------------------
Wikiquotes provides interesting fodder for this blog, citing several quotes on this subject, either sourced, unsourced or misattributed.
You decide which fit better, or maybe just provide your own.
======================================

Over at Northwest Citizen, John Servais' article posted Sep 1 gushes 'A People’s Victory - and a Rare One'.
I beg to differ - maybe, mainly because of the inherent ambiguity.
What does he mean by 'a people's victory'?
Which people?
Certainly, not all the people; particularly the ones who will be stuck with the burden of paying for the $3 Million or so the Council & Mayor agreed to - over the amount they had to spend!

And what does he mean by 'and a rare one'?
Seems to me this type of victory isn't very rare for Bellingham; just look at the many parks, trails, developed playgrounds, open space and the like the citizens of Bellingham have enjoyed over the years as a result of Greenways funding.
Remember, this funding is dedicated to acquiring, developing, maintaining the properties and amenities we've come to expect here; and the kind that attracts others here, regardless of whether their money paid for any of it or not.
So, I don't think its very 'rare' to have a new property added to the City's already excellent collection.

No, I suspect Mr Servais' words are meant to ID a specific type of deal; one that didn't come easily or naturally into being.
One that had a large measure of controversy attached, some legitimate, some manufactured.
That's the kind of 'victory' he seems to prefer and to advocate/agitate for.
So, with these clarifications and within rather narrow parameters, I suppose he is correct.
But, please do not construe Mr Servais view as reflective of our entire community.

It gives me no pleasure in submitting what is to follow, but in the interest of understanding what has transpired in connection with the recent commitment to acquire the Chuckanut Ridge property, the public might like to know about a few little flaws in this particular ointment.
Unfortunately, without calling these out, our electeds might be tempted to remain silent about them, or, worse, attempt to spin them out of credibility.
Don't want that to happen, do we?

These flaws are correctable, but citizens may need to help the Mayor & Council actually MAKE those corrections, otherwise we all will have no choice but to live with them - or just kick them down the road.
That is the entire purpose of this writing.
-----------------------------------

At the time of our last local elections -4 years ago- one new candidate for City Council lamented the impending fiscal crisis this way; 'it won't be much fun serving in office with no money to spend'.
How correct he was!
It certainly was not fun making the painful cuts and layoffs necessary to balance a severely reduced City budget, which 4 years later still remains problematic.

Similar feelings were undoubtedly expressed by the other electeds, including our erstwhile current mayor. who have now burst out of their financial straitjackets with a breathless rush to expend as much Greenways funds as they thought might be possible it acquiring ALL of the highly controversial 'Chuckanut Ridge' property at the very moment it became available and unencumbered.

That must have felt great to these electeds, who have labored so long under fiscal deprivations due to drastically reduced revenues imposed by the reality of our protracted recession, plus a few excesses of the past!
And, how wonderful to have a large war-chest of publicly voted funds just waiting to be spent!
Never mind that the Greenways 3 monies voted in 2006, from which most of the funding must come, almost never made it to the ballot because of the unreasonable demands made by strident advocates of buying this exact property.

A related irony is that the emotional campaign to prevent any development on this property, dove-tailed with a terrible economy to bankrupt both the developer and his bank, in turn causing the property to be valued at one-third its former 'price'.
This, in turn, allowed our current 'Town Fathers' to feel better about venting their pent-up urge to splurge.
Hey, its only natural to try to make people happy, isn't it?

And, the proper, dedicated funding was there, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?

Sadly, the answer is 'most of it was'. The rest -a measly $3 Million or so, plus any accrued interest on inter fund loans (maybe another $500k?)- must be borrowed, begged, or stolen from ...where?
Future Greenways levies?
I don't think so!

This Mayor and Council have not been good stewards of our treasured Greenways Funds on this hasty deal, which were clearly insufficient to responsibly make this $8.23 Million(+) purchase.
They winged it in their fever to please/appease, and in so doing, knowingly committed additional scarce City resources to cover their tracks.
Most troubling, they seem to expect a future [Greenways 4?] levy to rescue their bacon by including these current excesses in it!
How arrogant, ignorant and irresponsible is that?

You know, 'kicking the can down the road' is a tried and true tactic, but only when we let our electeds get away with it!
But, that was not the way Greenways was established, and it is not a good way to enhance its popularity or ensure its continuance.

Many people are no doubt very pleased -even ecstatic- with the Chuckanut Ridge purchase, as evidenced by the large, hastily planned celebration held only days after the announcement -and days before the actual consummation of the deal.
But, likely as many, or maybe more are not happy with the way this has gone down, either.
It's not that some reasonable purchase was made, which was widely expected; but the clear over-reaching, grandstanding and stupid finessing of details likely to reveal flaws that could have been easily corrected.

Think the timing was politically motivated? I do!
Pandering always seems to deliver some votes, but in this case it may subtract some too.
I'm not as much worried about the votes cast this year as I am for the votes cast 4 years from now -on a future Greenways levy.
That's because the best of programs and traditions can be seriously undermined if they are not administered properly.

Mark my words, this hasty and ill-advised Chuckanut Ridge purchase has exactly the type of baggage and potential fall-out to adversely impact future Greenways undertakings.
The 2006 arguments over this same property almost prevented Greenways 3 from even getting on the ballot, for God's sake!
Fortunately, the compromises made then were enough to produce a ballot measure the voters willingly supported.
This unwise action has the potential to reopen those old wounds, but maybe the public won't even notice?
But I noticed, and so have others who have been strong supporters of Greenways for more years than I have!

There are some things the City can do -even now- to rectify the situation and restore essential confidence in the process of fairly evaluating Greenways opportunities, selecting properties for acquisition and allocating funds more responsibly.

Specifically for the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition:

• Require the Responsible Development [RD} organization to honor its promise of raising at least $1 Million privately, to be dedicated to this purchase.
Please recall these extensive discussions, including the failed attempt at establishing a special Parks District to obtain funding.
I and others believed this to be a good faith effort which now needs to be honored.

• Sell sufficient Chuckanut Ridge property to pay the roughly $3 Million in purchase costs not covered by Greenways and related funds.
Some estimate the southern one-third of this property is well-suited for limited development, similar to that existing in the immediate surroundings.
Perhaps, 15 to 20 large homes could be sited there without unreasonably disturbing the heavily treed areas and/or wetlands.

In general:

• Avoid allowing protracted public discussion and debates about ANY specific properties to precede Greenways deliberations.
There was so much smoke & mirrors at work regarding Chuckanut Ridge that reasonable solutions were made so difficult they were essentially obliterated. In this recent case, Mayor Pike could not resist that temptation - an obvious flaw in judgement.

• Ensure illegal shenanigans, especially among electeds are discouraged, and if they occur, are subject to public scrutiny and discipline as appropriate.
The 'promise' of 4 votes by current Council members Knutson, Bornemann and former members Ryan & Beardsley in 2006 ought to have been severely sanctioned then, and should never be allowed to happen again! Good luck with enforcing that.

• Remember the purpose of Greenways is to fairly benefit ALL citizens of he City and not just those that are more vocal, have more resources or are more politically connected.
In 2006, it was thought this policy was clearly and carefully communicated to voters. Turns out, the voters weren't the problem.

• Make sure the administration of Greenways and related funds are always above reproach and do not externalize costs elsewhere.
Remember these do represent 'largesse from the public treasury'!
----------------

In the interest of accuracy, here is what the City posted on its website;

Budgets & Policy: Tomorrow's Just Your Future Yesterday

---------------------------------------
Craig Ferguson wrote a catchy theme song for his Late, Late Show:

It's hard to stay up
It's been a long, long day
And you got the sandman at the door
But hang on, leave the TV on
And let's do it anyway
It's ok
You can always sleep through work tomorrow, OK?
Hey hey
Tomorrow's just your future yesterday

That last line somehow stuck with me.
---------------------------------------
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire

“When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also add that some things are more nearly certain than others” - Bertrand Russell

The one unchangeable certainty is that nothing is unchangeable or certain. -John F. Kennedy

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell
---------------------------------------

A leading blessing -and curse- of our political system is its very dynamics, which encourages constant change.
This makes some folks feel uncomfortable while giving others something to fight for and welcome.
But, since hope springs eternal, each change attempted or made carries with it a promise to help solve some problem or benefit some cause.
The problem comes when people have different ideas about what is good or necessary and what is not.
And, since all things are ultimately connected and fairly delicately balanced, it matters that an honest effort at fairness and sustainability be made in our decision making.

Just think for a moment about budgets, whether Federal, local, global or individual.
Why do we have them and why do they matter?

Isn't there a practical limit to our resources, whether fiscal, ecological or social?
Isn't there also the question of reliably meeting established needs and anticipating future requirements?

Even though most real time decisions are made in the present moment, shouldn't these consider the continuum of time?
After all, radical disruptions/dislocations to businesses, climate or society do cause painful and worrisome effects.

Wouldn't it be nice if a clear majority of citizens could agree, once and for all, what is truly essential in life and set that aside from tampering by greedy, short-sighted or criminal elements?
That way, at least some lasting degree of certainty could be established to benefit us all.

Businesses like certainty; just ask any owner, CEO or shareholder.
People like certainty; just ask any employee, family member or investor.
Nature likes certainty; just ask any farmer, hunter, seaman, aviator or species- for that matter.
---------------------------------------

Our current budget debates in Washington, DC simply reflect what is happening at other levels of government, as well as businesses, households, institutions and charities.
This is integral to our priorities; meaning those things we consider most essential.
But it is also about our ability -and willingness- to pay for what we get.
To expect otherwise is wishful thinking at best, and patent ignorance at worst.

When budgets are established, debated, approved and adopted, are they written in stone -never to be altered?
Maybe more like written in Jello, as my Oncologist once described experimental treatment protocols.
But regardless of where and how budgets are written, we don't expect having to repeat EVERY argument each time budgets are revisited in the future.
There simply has to be SOME degree of constancy that can be relied upon in matters of importance to our society.
Don't you agree?

---------------------------------------
All that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. - James Madison

Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations. - James Madison

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority. - James Madison

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. - James Madison
---------------------------------------

When I started this post, linking to multiple articles to illustrate points crossed my mind, but I ditched that idea.
Too many words on a complicated subject are hard to write and even harder to read.
So, instead, a few more quotable sources are cited.
---------------------------------------
"The present is the only reality and the only certainty." - Arthur Schopenhauer

For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. - Barbara Jordan

If you aren't in the moment, you are either looking forward to uncertainty, or back to pain and regret. - Jim Carrey
---------------------------------------

Politics, Popularity & Priorities

-----------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.  Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------

There are {2} easy and {2} difficult things about politics as we know it;

Easy: cutting taxes & offering services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Difficult: raising taxes & cutting services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Can you identify any inherent conflicts with this situation?

[My blog of Saturday, November 22, 2008 also touches on this dilemma]

As Walter Cronkhite used to say; 'and that's the way it is'
-----------------------

Think what you will about politics, government and our ability to effectively deal with public problems in general, the system we have is what we -individually and collectively- make it to be.

Having a victim's mentality about politics helps nothing but perpetrating a perceived bad situation and discouraging good people from performing public service.
So, while complaints are OK, excessive complaints only exacerbate the problem.

Despite the obstacles, we do have a good number of dedicated public servants with the competence and courage to conceive, advocate and make the difficult decisions most likely to sustainably endure and benefit citizens.

Unfortunately, things often have to get bad enough that politicians have no choice but to really deal with the situation that has evolved.
Such seems to be happening now, and simultaneously at multiple levels of government.

A recent example is this opinion piece by Washington Governor, Christine Gregoire, in Crosscut.

You can read it and decide for yourself, but I think the Governor has very few options, given both legal restraints and inescapable realities.

Of course, this is also true of the situations which our local and federal governments are facing.
The main difference is the feds have much broader and more diverse responsibilities, plus no mandate to balance the budget.
Plus, the Fed can also legally print money.

Some may remember the well-intended, but tepid exercise the City of Bellingham underwent a few years ago.
It was called 'Priorities of Government' [POG]. and while most elected officials gave it lip service as 'an interesting concept', not many really wanted to seriously touch it to implement its clear implications.
Believe me, I know - I was there!

Anyway, it's too bad that an absolute crisis seems absolutely needed for governments to seriously confront such intractable questions as defining what is necessary, fair and sustainable as public policy.
Unfortunately -or otherwise- that is the situation we find ourself now.

-----------------------
"A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 62 - 1788
-----------------------

Budget Reporting: Whatcom County's Home Charter Mystique

----------------------------------
'Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.' - Louis D. Brandeis
---------------------------------

An earlier blog addressed this subject's issue.
Now, still lacking some basic answers, I hope questioning County Council candidates may help reveal what the County's budget reporting requirements are, what they ought to be according to the County Charter, and what the County Council intends to do about correcting any deficiencies.

Will it require a Charter amendment, or a simple Resolution to the Executive that requests more frequent budgetary progress reports?

As a City Council Member, I wanted to stay timely informed about City financial matters -good, bad or indifferent.
And, it's hard to imagine County Council members not feeling the same way!

Maybe there are ready answers to my question just waiting to be harvested.
But, maybe there aren't, which may make asking the question somewhat unwelcome?
This question needs to be asked, answered and fixed as appropriate.
------------------------------------

On related matters, other questions ought to be asked of the candidates themselves, and not only about specific issues.
An earlier blog covered this aspect as well, plus the important general qualifications of competence and integrity.

Unlike 'issues of the moment', the basic decision-making process of candidates -plus the ever essential integrity and competence- are the criteria that voters can rely upon regardless of issue.

Hopefully, the forums, debates, campaign literature and answers to questions like these will help voters make the selections most likely to benefit Whatcom County and other jurisdictions.
------------------------------------

One final thought.
David Brooks, the Conservative pundit, wrote this opinion column for the NYTimes.
It seems a very timely and appropriate subject, regardless of jurisdiction.

Read it and develop your own reaction.
Frankly, I enjoyed it.
------------------------------------
"Writers are at their best as terrorists- Sometimes social terrorists, sometimes political, sometimes terrorists of the heart. If a writer is good, he will be all three at once. His weapons are words well used to disturb and to clarify thought, emotion and action." - John Ralston Saul
------------------------------------

Draft Sewer Plan: Perpetually Unfinished Business

----------------------
This will offer 20 or so questions, several early answers from our former Public Works Director, plus a few comments from me submitted about 2 years ago.
But, the date really has little to do with this perpetually unfinished business, which will come up again and again.

And, because our sewer system -like our water system- is a Municipal Enterprise, its funding, including capital improvements, is funded by utility rates that system users pay.

That is not to say we don't have to be prudent and careful with the management of this fund, and the rates and system development charges that provide its revenue.
Anyway, rather than keeping this buried in my draft file, I might as well post it so those interested can read it or refer to it.

So, here goes:
-----------------------

How many people do you know who would willingly spend all day Saturday reading over 300 pages of a draft Sewer Plan?

OK, maybe a few engineers might do that.

Otherwise, only people like City Council members would do it, because they will need to understand why planning 20 years into the future is necessary, in order to justify making some important decisions that will affect how our sewer system must be expanded and upgraded, and these improvements paid for over that time.

Most people take sewers for granted as a basic necessity that is just -somehow- provided.
That's good, because the folks who operate our sewer system and waste treatment plant prefer to remain very low profile!
Remaining low profile means things are operating smoothly with little if any problems that can be noticed by citizens.

Bet you didn't know these fascinating facts:

• The City operates 324 miles of wastewater collection systems

• The Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant has a peak capacity of 72 million gallons per day

• The City's sewer service area covers 30 square miles and serves 83,000 customers

• The elevation ranges from sea level to a height of 800 feet

• Treated wastewater is discharged into Bellingham Bay

• Treatment of wastewater is closely regulated by the State Dept of Ecology

• Population growth over the next 20 years will require building capital facilities costing about $191 million [factoring in estimated inflation]

• All of this funding must be raised either from ratepayers [2/3] or public Revenue Bonds [1/3]

• The Sewer Utility operates as an Enterprise Fund, which means its costs of operation must be matched by its revenues.

• Some carefully considered increases to both sewer rates and system development charges must be adopted to meet projected needs.
---------------------

With this brief background it may be easier to understand why this topic should be of more than passing interest to everyone.
That is why this afternoon's Council Work Session was important.

Unfortunately, this meeting was not televised on BTV10, or well-attended, which is why I'm mentioning this subject in this blog.

In preparation for this meeting, I asked the 20 sets of questions shown below, and obtained early answers to most of them before the issue was tabled for more work and future consideration.

Answers given to these are summarized following each question.
Answers to the rest await their being asked again.

Stay tuned to see what decisions this -or a future- Council will make on this important issue
---------------------
Questions & Answers

---------------------
Q1. The Sewer system dynamics make a good illustration of what is meant by 'level of service', and can also be applied to transportation.
By identifying pinch points and suggesting parallel piping, larger piping, holding tanks and combined flow mitigation,
these have direct counterparts to handling traffic.

A1. Agreed regarding traffic. That's why we have Deemer, Cordata and Eliza parallel to the Guide.

---------------------
Q2. In the various scenarios, I don't see the idea of relocating the big interceptor that crosses Whatcom Creek.
Was this idea considered?
What is the estimated cost?
Is this the time to consider such an idea?

A2. We don't have the Whatcom Creek pipe in because relocating it doesn't help the sewer system.
We can do it by adding a pump station on one side of the creek.
It is millions and purely optional.
We can do it anytime someone provides the money.

---------------------
Q3. Regarding the proposed C Street Remote Storage facility, would this be located near or on waterfront property?
Is this included in waterfront redevelopment planning?
Will this idea serve to excite the neighborhood?

A3. C Street would be a large vault built under the renovated C Street at the waterfront.
Maybe 50 feet wide, 500 feet long and 20 feet deep.
We would essentially drive on the roof.

---------------------
Q4. Sewer service is a valuable commodity!
Do we need to reserve our existing capacity preferentially for in-City use?
How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District?

A4. Quick feedback while working on the bigger answers: the sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years.
It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years.
That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement. I have contacted LWWSD to start the process.

A4. The Comp Plan planning section reviews the entire service area and takes into account the population projects and update TAZ data to determine adequate sanitary sewer capacity. The intent of the plan is to have a living document that can be updated as necessary. There is ‘no reserve’ but rather built in capacity for the densities that have been approved for current in-fill strategies. Example: if a future Council decided on limiting service to an area but wanted to expand density in another, the plan could be amended to achieve this goal or the capacity is already built-in to the system. How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District? Generally, most annexations are in areas within the City’s UGA and those areas have been included in the planning/capacity analysis for this particular comprehensive plan. Unless during the annexation process zoning changes were being recommended to increase densities that may have not been originally planned for, there is again, built in capacity for those annexations. The City only serves one Water District with sanitary sewer service, LWWSD and the flows from that District are included in this plan based on 1) contract amount and the draft LWWSD comp plan.

---------------------
Q5. Do we charge SDCs for the Water District? Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?

A5. Yes, [we do charge SDCs for the Water District] however, the only District receiving sewer service is LWWSD and they have a contract that allows for a specific amount of sewage flow, therefore, we would not be able to charge an SDC for each one of their internal customers that are connecting to their system. We could, if a new district required service charge the provider for the new main connection and service to the City’s system, i.e. Ferndale or Lummi, etc…

Q5. Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?

A5. The SDC are a ‘buy-in+growth’ concept that the Council approved during the 2004 ‘cost-of-service’ model rate study. If a District where to ask for a new connection, the SDC would apply. The SDC is based on ‘meter size equivalent’ so generally there is really no ‘subsidy’ here.

Q5. What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?

A5. Depending on the context, but ‘average GPM’ is the expected flow in the system or from a customer on average over a specific time period. The industry usually uses ‘average annual GPM’ or ‘average annual daily flow.’ ‘Peak flow’ is the highest expected flow rate during a specific period of time; it can be in a daily format or an annual flow rate depending on whether one is discussing water or wastewater. In wastewater, we generally use daily peak flows as our way to gauge sizing of components and facilities.

Q5. If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?

A5. SDC are only paid at the time of permit, we would not be issuing any new permits to a water district unless they were to ask for a new connection. So, raising SDC for all new customers, inside and outside of the City only affects those services that are directly connected to the City’s sanitary sewer service.

Q5. Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?

A5. The City is currently reviewing the Interlocal Agreement and is in the process of trying to reopen the process for negotiating. Internal meetings are on-going to outline strategies and objectives. The sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years. It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years. That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement.

Q5. It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?

Q5. The Cost-of-Service model includes an analysis that accounts for the revenue generated by the 1974 agreement and subsequent payment options on new facilities, i.e. Oak St Lift Station Upgrade in 2005.

---------------------
Q6. Section 3 assumes the County will OK the City's request for additional UGA land supply.
Since this is in question, how will less land supply impact the analysis of future needs?

A6. The analysis is conservative in nature and as a living document with an active hydraulic model it is intended to be updated and used on a continual basis; the plan can be modified as planning scenarios change and growth is either slowing or increasing. We will update and reevaluate the CIP on a regular basis to ensure that our targets are being met.

---------------------
Q7. Are there further plans for separating sanitary and storm water, aside from reducing existing I & I?

A7. In 1978-1982, the City undertook a huge storm/sewer separation project that basically removed all known storm water from the sanitary system with some exceptions and no removal of roof drains from property owners. We are constantly evaluating the sanitary system through portable and permanent flow meters to determine unknown sources of storm water into the system. There are several large storm pipes that are in need of separation but unfortunately, no storm systems exists in the drainage area nor are those pipes easily constructed at this time due to existing structures and topography. These are in the downtown area, along the waterfront and it is expected that as the waterfront develops, these will be separated into new storm systems.

---------------------
Q8. Since Yew Street has not been up-zoned, why is the extension to Samish Way at Lake Padden needed?

A8. There are existing homes that are in need of sanitary sewer that would remove septic systems from the Lake Padden drainage area.

---------------------
Q9. There are expensive plans in Chapter 7 for sewer line extensions west of the airport and east of I-5.
Are these considered likely annexations?
If not, why plan for them?


A9. Annexations and their likelihood were derived from the Planning Dept and it’s direction from Council. It is not fully known on annexation timeliness nor likelihood. However, these areas are within the City’s planning area for wastewater service and thus need to be considered in the calculations at this time.

---------------------
Q10. What are our plans for providing sewers to currently un-sewered areas in the City, like the South Neighborhood?
Is significant growth likely for this area? Enough to justify costs?

A10. The City approached this neighborhood in the mid-90’s as a potential candidate for a Utility LID (Local Improvement District) but after analysis the cost did not justify the improvements. Depending on neighborhood sentiment and growth, it may be advantageous to review this again.

---------------------
Q11. The suggestions for eliminating bottlenecks, increasing efficiency, changing treatment technology and expanding unit processes and unit operations at Post Point seem well-conceived and phased.
What is the practical limit on this site?
I note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested.
Is that the maximum likely?
What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?

A11. The site expansion would be limited for any continued expansion to the west and south by the new recommended improvements being built in 2009-2012. The City’s purchase of the McKenzie Ave property allows for some additional growth beyond the current proposal most likely into 2030. After that, if no additional property is obtained to the north (Port of Bellingham land) then possible upgrades to existing process with newer technologies that do not require larger footprints may be an option.

Q11. note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested. Is that the maximum likely?

A11. The City has experienced flows at the WWTP around 72MGD instantaneous, so the 82 MGD and the higher 107MGD are good planning numbers that are consistent with growth projections and the planning storm of 2004.

Q11. What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?

A11. Hydraulically, additional collection system storage or high rate treatment facilities may be necessary within the collection system at key conveyance points to meet futre needs, similar to what is being recommended for the collection system in 2012.

---------------------
Q12. What about nutrient removal? Is this for Nitrogen? Will it work on Phosphorus?
Where is DOE coming from on this?
When does our existing NPDES permit expire?

A12. Based on discussions with DOE, nutrient limits (ammonia, N, and/or P) are not likely to be imposed during the planning period. Furthermore, the current recommended expansion is not designed to provide nutrient removal per se (although bio-P is provided via the anaerobic selector). The planned expansion can be modified if needed at some future date, to accommodate nutrient removal. The City received its new NPDES permit on November 02, 2007, it is good for 5 years from that date.

---------------------
Q13. Recommended conveyance systems improvements fall largely at the edges of City limits, some in UGAs.
If the City must finance these prior to annexation, isn't that an undue burden on existing taxpayers?
Will Latecomers fees recover all these costs?

A13. If any utility improvements are installed by ratepayer funds, the City will assess property owners a future latecomer fee to access the system. Another possible way to achieve improvements prior to annexation or during would be to form a Utility LID. Costs that are associated with capacity are rolled into the SDCs and new developer pays the buy-in + growth, thus paying back the cost that the City incurred to make the necessary capacity available to the new customer.

---------------------
Q14. Chapter '11' for Capital Improvements Plan is scary!
But, seriously, the Basis for Estimated Cost on page 11-5 is interesting.
Can or should this methodology be applied to other capital projects?
Like a Library?

A14. Yes, many other organizations, especially the Federal Government use ‘Cost Basis of Estimate’ or BOE. The Cost Basis of Estimate provides a record of the procedures, ground rules and assumptions, data, environment, and events that underlie a cost estimate’s development or update. Good documentation supports the cost estimate’s credibility, aids in the analysis of changes in program cost, enables reviewers to effectively assess the cost estimate, and contributes to the population of data bases for estimating the cost of future programs.

---------------------
Q15. Thank goodness this isn't Chapter 11!
Good job of presenting the results of many complex activities and projects.
The point needs to be made clearly these total $110 million in present day costs.
The $191 million takes into account escalation over time and on time.
Regardless, it is good news that only 30% of the total amount must be raised from bonds, grants and other sources other than rates & SDCs.
Having to raise $33 million present day or $60 million escalated will be far more acceptable for Council to approve.

A15. No comments received.

---------------------
Q16. The rate increases of 7% for 2008 and 7.68% for 2009 are OK with me because they do seem necessary because they address a known deficiency earlier rather than later.
But, some others may feel differently and an alternate phasing might be advisable to have in your back pocket.

A16. Phasing options will be available for discussion.

---------------------
Q17. The SDC increases are quite substantial and will probably be fought by the BIA and others.
So, timing is important! Maybe early December after elections?
You might also consider a phasing plan for SDCs, although its probably better to just get beaten up once instead of multiple times.
But, a $4201 increase over the existing $3436 SDC is a big jump! 122%

A17. This will be something that we will want to discuss at the November 19th Council session on water/sewer rates.
A phasing plan is always an option and if Council like to explore the possibility of phasing the SDC, we will have several courses of action to choose from.

---------------------
Q18. The comparison to other cities on page 12-15 is useful.
But only Kirkland is shown as having a higher SDC AFTER we increase ours.
That may be a negative.

A18. No comments received.

---------------------
Q19. Appendix D - Water District Agreement needs revisiting!
I know we can't rescind it, but we can change it!
Changes in circumstances is really all we have to claim.
Since 1974 we have finally discovered Lake Whatcom is our reservoir and taken significant action to protect it.
Those actions cost dearly and all parties need to share more equitably!
Sudden Valley should not be considered a low cost community.
Other developments around the Lake are certainly not low cost either!
This sewer agreement is leverage the City ought to be using better.

A19. No comments received.

---------------------
Q20. It would be nice to get the changes is SDCs and rates into the 2008 budget, whether before we approve on Nov 26 or early next year.
But, if Water rates and Stormwater rates are to be increased as well, you need to think about what's most important and start with that.
It will be very nice to get these big utility funds updated to last several years into the future, regardless of administration.
Including phased increases is a very smart way to do that, for multiple reasons.

A20. No comments received.

---------------------