Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations

Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:

In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.

A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.

As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!

The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.

[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]

√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded

CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county

CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %

UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64

NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4

Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72

Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57

Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0

Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53

Either Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!

Lee Iacocca, former Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, became famous for his inspirational, aggressive and goal oriented management style. In fact, that was why he was chosen to turn-around that troubled auto maker, which was in such dire straits. The title of this piece was the punch line in one of his ads, which also seems to have applicability here in Whatcom County.

That is the subject of this piece.

Lois Garlick -my friend- a spry and environmentally engaged senior citizen -an octogenarian at that- was the only person who actually stepped up to oppose the entrenched incumbent -Pete Kremen- as County Executive.
Others did consider it, but for various reasons did not decide to run, which is a shame.

Maybe they thought Pete was too difficult an opponent, maybe they weren't up to a gruelling campaign, maybe they had to continue supporting themselves and their families with more certainty at their jobs, maybe they felt unqualified, maybe they did not have sufficient name recognition, maybe they didn't have enough political backing and financial support, maybe they just didn't want to, maybe other reasons, I don't know, but that's not important now.

The fact is, most people probably don't know Lois, and many who do, don't think she has a chance to unseat Pete, and therefore aren't doing much to even help her get her message out. Maybe she is a dark horse, so what? She's running because Pete needs to be held accountable, and respond to questions about things which he has had the responsibility and authority to do all during his 12 years as County Executive.

Don't you believe Pete needs to be held accountable for a few things he hasn't done, or even tried to do? I do. That's why I've decided to not only vote for Lois Garlick, but to help campaign for her. Because, when you think about it, Pete Kremen doesn't respond to anything but political pressure, and without it he's just on cruise control for another 4 years. That's not OK with me, and I think many others feel the same way.

I recently received a reminder from the Whatcom Democrats -of whom I am a member- to support and vote for the candidates they endorsed. Well, I'm not necessarily going to do that, for more than one reason. One is that Pete Kremen got an endorsement, but kindly Lois Garlick did not!

What is wrong with that picture? Other elective offices even got multiple endorsements -and of course no one can support them all- but not the office of County Executive? Probably some good, bureaucratic reason for that little oversight, but the real point of this is to call attention to the excellent General Platform the Democrats adopted to support their endorsements.

Here it is:

"We support candidates who will ensure that our communities are great places to live, work, learn and play and:

Plan for and Manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively

• Preserve our agricultural lands
• Retain and enhance neighborhood character
• Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives

Protect our Environment

• Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds
• Clean up hazardous waste sites
• Restore and protect wildlife habitat

Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly

• Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity
• Provide opportunities for citizen input"

That Platform sounds pretty good to me! It also fits pretty closely what Lois Garlick's goals are, as printed on her flyer.

What doesn't fit is that these good things were supposed to be the values that Pete Kremen stands for and will honestly try to implement to the best of his ability. And not Lois Garlick? Give me a break! That's just backwards, but as they say 'politics makes strange bedfellows'.

Then, the thought occurred to me that this admirable Platform could form the basis for a real life comparison between what Pete Kremen HAS done during the last 12 years, and what Lois Garlick promises to do in the next 4 years. How's that for serendipity?

So,following the Demo's Platform, here's a few questions for Pete to answer:

I. Plan for and manage Whatcom County's Growth Effectively

Please explain what you have done to make this happen? Is your plan working?
What happened to the overworked Planning Staff that quit almost en masse?
What about the land supply analysis needed to help the County adequately plan without sprawl? What is the result you would support?
What about the County's commitment to help the City meet its goal of accommodating over 50% of the County's 20-year projected growth?
Why was the County cited by the Growth Management Board for non-compliance?
Have those problems been corrected?

I. a. Preserve our agricultural lands

Why isn't there an adopted Purchase of Development Rights [PDR] program?
How many AG acres have been preserved without it? How many are needed?
What is the County's target PDR funding level and its source?
Why are there enough vested 5-acres lots to take ALL the growth for 20 years?
Why is the County still advocating and allowing conversion of Forestry lands to development?
When will the County make a determination of what would constitute sufficient AG lands to make AG a sustainable business in Whatcom County?

I. b. Retain and enhance neighborhood character

Why have Neighborhoods in the UGA been allowed to develop without full density, and City levels of service for Parks and connecting arterials?
Why has the County resisted the City's policy of requiring annexation before extending water and sewer utilities?
Why aren't the use of City standards and zoning required in the UGA? Wouldn't this help simplify the permitting process and make infill more certain?
Does anyone in the County Planning Dept have an urban planning background?
Why hasn't the County supported the new Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] legislation passed especially to help redevelop Bellingham's Waterfront?
Does the County expect to contribute any Economic Development Incentive [EDI] funds to the Waterdfront Redevelopment? At what level? When will this happen?
Do you understand that Waterfront Redevelopment will not only clean up a badly contaminated area, but also aid Economic Development of our entire County, provide citizens with greater access to the Bay, and substantially assist the City in meeting it's goal of accommodating infill of 3000 to 6000 people?
Do you understand that LIFT assistance would only occur as progress is actually made toward these goals?
Do you understand -and can you explain- why existing Bellingham neighborhoods will be increasingly impacted, and housing affordability will suffer, if insufficient additional UGA land supply is made available by the County?
Do you appreciate how much work must be done to bring the City's development codes up to standard? Have you discussed this problem with the Mayor and/or City Planning Director?

I. c. Manage traffic and provide transportation alternatives

Why doesn't the County require traffic impact fees?
Why does County continue building expensive, unnecessary roads to support sprawl? What are the criteria for building or improving County roads?
Why is the important Public Works Director position still vacant? Is there also a problem in attracting and retaining Public Works professionals?
Does the County coordinate arterial planning and prioritizing with the City?
Are the siting of park and ride locations part of County transportation planning?

2. Protect our Environment

Please explain what you have done about this? What happened to the touted Lake Whatcom phosphorus reduction program? Who's assigned to this program? At what level of effort?
What happened to the Planning and Public Works Staff assigned to the Lake Whatcom Management Program for this purpose? Will Bruce Roll and Sue Blake and other experienced staff members be replaced? Can their experience be replaced?

2. a. Protect Water Quality in all Watersheds

What happened to the WRIA 1 countywide water planning effort that spent $4.3 in public funds million before it was halted?
When will this effort be re-started?
Why did the County oppose the City's efforts to acquire and preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed?
Why hasn't the County established and funded a stormwater management system of its own to help preserve Lake Whatcom?
Why does the County continue allowing development in the Lake Whatcom watershed outside the UGA, without sufficient access to water and sewer?
While you live in the Lake Whatcom watershed, and also own developable lots there, what conflict of interest may exist between the goal of protecting the lake and your personal affairs?
Why hasn't the County enforced its own regulations, including seasonal restrictions on clearing & grading?

2. b. Clean up hazardous waste sites

What's happening about the former Nooksack landfill?
Why didn't the County support LIFT to assist the City and Port in their efforts to clean up the G-P, other contaminated industrial sites and former landsfills on the Waterfront, to facilitate its redevelopment?
Doesn't the County's Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Chapter emphasize supporting exactly this type of redevelopment?
Please explain why this policy was NOT followed on LIFT?

2. c. Restore and protect wildlife habitat

Please explain what have you and the County have done about this?
Was protecting salmon habitat supposed to be a big part of the WRIA 1 effort? Since WRIA 1 has been stalled, has this goal been achieved?

3. Manage Our Local Governments Responsibly

Explain how you have been able to achieve a balance between frugality with public funds and providing the services that citizens need and want?
Why has the County accumulated unanticipated funds well beyond established reserve levels?
What is being done about the perpetual shortage of Sheriff's deputies?
What is being done about the need for a larger and more modern County Jail?
Why has the County resisted expanding Emergency Management Services to accommodate the post 9/11 needs of Cities and citizens?
Why is County staff morale and retention been valued so lowly that it has become an ongoing problem?
Why has the County Council found it necessary to hire its own staff, and attempt to take control of the County's planning function?
What does the County actually mean by 'collaboration' with other jurisdictions? How do you, and the County, decide when and how to 'collaborate'?
Why does so much back-biting and blaming of others continue to happen? Is this practice considered useful as a substitute for actually addressing and fixing problems?
Does your trying to avoid a DUI arrest help foster public trust?
Why did it take 3 ballot measures to get the County to fully support EMS?

3. a. Balance and Manage our Tax Dollars with Integrity

Why has the County accumulated such a large surplus of unspent funds?
Is this reserves excess the reason County property taxes have not increased for 12 years?
If these 'excess' funds are not required or timely used, should some portion of these funds be returned to taxpayers?
Aren't there demonstrated needs for these funds, such as hiring critical staff?
Why does the County consistently prefer more regressive sales taxes over property taxes?
Why hasn't the County adopted a B&O tax, so that businesses have more incentive to locate in urban areas instead of sprawling?
Is the County over-collecting revenues from allowing sprawl in urban growth areas [UGAs] without providing urban levels of service?
Does this practice effectively under-utilize urban growth areas, thereby eventually adding to sprawl?
Is the County Flood Tax fair to smaller property owners?
Is the Flood Tax being shared equitably with cities?
What funding source has been identified for WRIA 1? Is it adequate?

3. b. Provide opportunities for citizen input

When citizen input is given, does the County really listen?
Why not televise County Council Committee Sessions, so citizens can see and hear what goes on, at their own convenience?
Does official input from other jurisdictions, like the City [40% of County population], count as citizen input?
Are County Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Planning Commission recommendations considered citizen advice?
Are City Council recommendations considered citizen advice?

-------------
The Whatcom Democrats are to be commended for the excellent Platform they developed and adopted. They are not responsible for who decides to run for office, but must make judgements on which candidates they will support. Perhaps, Pete Kremen is the candidate most capable of diligently pursuing and achieving the goals of ther platform. But, I do have serious reservations about him actually doing it, because his history has not supported that expectation. Also, endorsing a candidate is not the same as voting for them, so maybe there is more of a chance for Lois Garlick than anyone thinks?

I believe that all of the goals from the Demo's Platform, are critically important. The really good questions they suggest can also help us find clues as to what has been missing in Whatcom County government during Pete Kremen's 12-year tenure.
The County Executive is the one person we can hold MOST accountable for any deficiencies, as well as any lack of initiative to fix them. Excessive non-action on real issues is considered a major failure of both leadership, and management, that I and many others find it hard to accept, as citizens of Whatcom County!

I believe that Lois Garlick can do a better job than Pete Kremen has done as County Executive. Not only better, but much better! At a minimum, she will not be seeking re-election as her first priority, and that's for sure. And, I know she has the gumption, integrity and courage to hire the talent she will need to help her do this important job right!

Let's send a message to Pete Kremen that we expect much more from our County Executive than he has delivered. And, if Pete is re-elected, we will expect him to seriously address each of the Demo's Platform Issues.

What do we have to lose by voting for Lois Garlick? Well, we might just lose something we ought to lose - continued sub-standard leadership for Whatcom County. What is really hard to understand is that Pete is likely more capable than he has demonstrated, and he has a pretty good Council to work with that would support him in pursuing the Demo's Platform goals! So, why doesn't Pete get on with the program and get something more positive done than maintaining essentially a do-nothing 'status quo' posture that only makes worse his legacy, and the problems our children will face as their legacy?

As Lee Iacocca said, either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

Sorry Pete, I'm voting for Lois Garlick!

Parking Is Not Free

This piece was published in Whatcom Watch earlier this year:

Parking is not free. The land under vehicles — whether moving or at rest — is valuable and owned by someone, either a government entity or a private interest. Permission to park on public property is a privilege, not a right. Policy regarding parking is adopted by the elected body and administered by public servants according to established laws, regulations and practices.

Changes are always possible, but subject to deliberation and consideration of all reasonable impacts. Changes can be upsetting to established practice, but are sometimes necessary. Growth is a change with cumulative effects that happen over time. Compact growth exacerbates noticeable problems greatly and quickly, and must be dealt with carefully with a long-term view of fairness, flexibility and reality.

Parking is not likely to become either cheaper or easier to provide, rather, the opposite will happen. Old habits, customs and practices will need to change over time to adapt to the new realities that are evolving.

A comprehensive plan for parking citywide in Bellingham is needed, but will not be easy to develop except in its guiding principles to address change over time. A parking plan for specific, concentrated public areas should be much simpler to develop, implement and use.

Civic Center and Cultural District Parking

Such an area is the civic center and its adjacent cultural district in downtown Bellingham. Parking problems in this area have grown to the point that action is required without undue further delay. To the extent these specific problems can be reasonably and sustainably addressed would inform and encourage similar action elsewhere.

As a microcosm of parking related problems, the civic center and cultural district deserves our immediate attention, energy and action. Any resolution to the parking scarcity in this heavily and constantly used area will certainly help the institutions, facilities, businesses, patrons and others to use this area more efficiently and effectively. Done correctly, it could also encourage much greater use of public transit, bicycles and pedestrian walkways, as well as demonstrate the multiple advantages of planning for future urban centers.

Parking is what it is — currently an accommodation to conventional transportation, primarily private motorized vehicles. The space taken up by parking is now too valuable for that use alone. Fees, collected from meters, do not begin to cover the costs of land strictly dedicated to parking, and if they do, they won’t for long.

There is no denial of the need for adequate and conveniently located parking. That is certainly necessary; however, what citizens expected to be freely provided in the past is now becoming more costly and unrealistic each year.

Citizens have voted to voluntarily tax themselves for more green space, but not for more parking. That means that parking needs require a way to pay for themselves, either as privately provided incentives to shop or as parking fees to pay for structured facilities near where people need and want to go. A fiscally responsible alternate is to simply not provide free parking for private vehicles.

Periodically, there have been parking studies conducted, but none have been comprehensive, widely supported or their recommendations accepted and achieved. Some have been admittedly been limited in scope; others have simply begged creditability. Even the actions taken more recently by the City Council are still being questioned as necessary, fair or even in the right direction, despite their clearly expressed rationale.

What Needs to Be Done?

So, what is to be done? Nearly everyone agrees something needs to be done, whether it is to return to the prior system, providing cheaper or free parking downtown, or building costly structures to attract cars to support business, entertainment or visitors.

Most citizens agree that much better parking solutions should be provided in the civic center and cultural district, they just don’t want to pay for it themselves — preferring to externalize the problem and its solution to “others.” Perhaps the “others” should be the users? But these users will also likely need help to get traction toward visible progress.

What follows is an idea regarding the new library parking space that may serve to satisfy several needs, but certainly not all.

Both city and county governments are concentrated in one fairly compact area, and both have expanded significantly during the last several years, along with the general population and its need for services.

Necessary capital improvements has also occurred recently to make the publicly-owned Mt. Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum more viable in attracting the type of regional economic development envisioned and enabled by the Public Facilities District. A new Children’s Museum is being constructed and significant improvements to the streetscapes in the immediate area are underway.

All of these activities are expected to have the effect of making this area much more of a truly people place, much more of the time. The net result will be more people visiting the area and more businesses encouraged to invest in it. This is a scenario designed to create a greater need for both alternate transportation and parking, and it is happening!

Now, the time for investment in another well-used public facility in this same area is drawing near — the Bellingham Public Library. Planning for the next 50 years means that a larger and more modern building to provide the library and public meeting facilities is needed soon.

Fortunately, the block on which the current library stands is already owned by the city and can provide sufficient space for the new facility, as well as structured, underground parking for a significant number of vehicles that typically visit the civic center.

Use All Available Underground Space for Parking

Funding for any new library must come from a publicly-voted bond measure, which would typically include only a limited amount of parking directly associated with library operations. But, it would make sense to consider using all the available underground space to produce significantly more parking than the library requires or should be expected to finance.

It would also make fiscal sense to construct any parking beyond that needed by the library at the time the new library is built. Preliminary estimates are that up to about 250 parking spaces could be provided under the existing library land, providing an essential part of its foundation.

Most of this parking could be used for city and county civic use during business hours and cultural events parking afterwards as well. This new parking would be easily accessible and off the streets, but not free. It would need to charge the various users, as the preferred way of repaying any councilmanic bond passed to cover the costs of only that parking over and above the library’s needs.

Absent a comprehensive parking plan for the entire downtown, perhaps our local governments will consider the lack of adequate parking in the civic center and cultural district area a serious enough problem to address soon. It is the job of these governments to do so, and in a timely fashion.

Any parking plan developed for this area needs to be reasonable and fiscally sensible, with adequate sensitivity to soliciting, hearing and carefully evaluating the input of citizens. The library’s needs are real, as are the parking problems in the immediate area.

Perhaps, the consideration of both issues simultaneously can result in highly synergistic benefit to the city and county governments, the library, area businesses and institutions, and most all, the citizens. That seems a worthy goal!

Politics for Dummies?

The first time I saw the book 'Computers for Dummies' I was somewhat put off by the title. Sure, I needed the advice it likely contained, but it felt a little odd being called a 'dummy' -by author? publisher?- if I bought it to read!

The latest issue of Cascadia Weekly uses the 'Dummy' gimmick to introduce only those candidates for local offices who have Primary races.
That includes for Bellingham, the Mayor, At-Large Council and Ward 4 Council seats; for Whatcom County, the District 1 Council seat; for Ferndale, the Mayor's race.
A 'ranking of candidates' is cleverly done as a continuation of the 'sub-genius' theme. Each candidate is tagged with a short label with a twist, designed to -not so subtlely- show the editor's preference.

But wait, there's more to this ranking system, that seems to be more of an insight into the editor's preferences than the candidates fitness for office!
But, hey, that's OK. It's an opinion piece -like this blog- except, the Weekly has a much bigger following and more bucks behind it.
Using the clever rating device of 'meters' for 'moxie' and 'chutzpah', the Weekly has designed something only it understands and placed it on the page where 'dummies' can be attracted to read it. Too clever by half!

Not content with just a marked deck, the Weekly then stacks this deck with an unexplained -but very obvious-rating system comprised of arrows - either up or down, and differing in length - that tell the 'dummy' voters which way to vote!
I got a real chuckle out of this, although some of my favorite candidates were thoroughly skewered by it.

The candidate rankings showed pronounced bias in two main areas; specifically the Bham Mayor's race, and generally, an anti-incumbent stance. Actually, the 'anti-incumbent' part was stretched to mean any one who had ever served the City, either in some elected capacity - or appointed one. Huh? What is that about? Isn't some prior experience desirable? Guess not, because those folks aren't as fun to watch as 'newbies'. Fresh meat is craved!

The point of this piece is not to tout the Weekly's cleverness, or complain about the candidate ranking system, but to reflect on what the former Weekly -the every other one- felt about actually picking favorites in local elections.
My recollection is that the former Weekly -same editor- thought that the practice of local media picking favorites was a poor one, and did not directly engage in that activity. Apparently, that philosophy has changed.

Perhaps this change was occasioned by the change in ownership? I don't know. More likely is the editor's penchant for taking sides on controversial topics with moxie and chutzpah, and thereby generating more buzz in our City of Subdued Excitement?
Maybe that is it! Pick a topic that is likely to generate all sorts of controversy, and light the fuse to see what happens!
Heck, other corporate media do that, why not? If that is part of the Weekly's MO, that's not all bad either, because such topics NEED to be discussed.

My main concern is whether a discussion is being deliberately lead in a direction that does not strike a reasonable balance between fact & opinion, pro & con, benefits vs costs, legality & illegality, needs vs wishes, and hidden agendas vs public ones.
But fairly evaluating those things is so boring, isn't it? Hard work can be that way, but that is ultimately what serves the public best, once a community's needs and priorities have been established. Changes are always in order, some more beneficial than others, because that is what keeps our democracy alive.
My caution is simple; don't overly abuse what is in our long term best interests with unworthy substitutes, like empty rhetoric, data-free analyses and a steady diet of complaining!

A J Liebling is credited with saying 'the power of the press belongs to those who own one'!
As a respected local source of fun, information and opinion, the Weekly provides a service and a voice that help citizens feel more a part of what's going on.
So, please don't over abuse your power of persuasion, but do keep on entertaining us!

Pooh Bear's Easter Party

One sunny day in the 100-acre wood, Pooh Bear decided he wanted to have a party and invite all his friends. Because Easter time was approaching, Pooh thought an Easter egg hunt would be fun too. So, he decided to invite his guests to each bring a little basket in which to put the eggs they found. Pooh decided he would dye the eggs and hide them, but not to hide them so well that his friends could not find them.

Pooh decided he would buy enough eggs for everyone to have at least one, and maybe two or three - but not six- if they were good at finding eggs in the woods. Pooh dyed the eggs all different colors, some red, some blue, some yellow and some green. He even mixed the colors so he could make orange eggs and purple eggs and all sorts of other combinations of colors. He did this because Pooh knew that all his friends liked all the colors and he wanted to make them all as happy as possible.

The more Pooh thought about his party, the happier Pooh got, until he felt his cheeks hurt because he was smiling so much! You see, Pooh really liked parties himself, and he especially liked parties where all his friends could come and have a good time together!

On the day of his party, Pooh carefully took each of his pretty, bright colored eggs and hid them one by one. Some eggs he hid in a clump of grass, some behind a bush, some in the short trees where leafy branches were easy to reach, and a few behind some rocks. He even saved a few eggs for some of his friends who he knew were not very good at finding things like eggs. Pooh thought he could secretly put these extra eggs in their baskets when they were not looking. That way, everyone could have an egg or two or three, and not just those who were very good at finding eggs.

When he was finished hiding the Easter eggs, Pooh waited for his friends to arrive. And, they came one by one, and sometimes two by two, and once three came at one time. Everyone had brought their baskets, and they were all very happy that Pooh had invited them to his party. Pooh was happy too. He couldn't wait to serve them some apple punch and nuts with honey and a bowl of bright red and purple berries he had found in the 100 acre wood. The berries reminded Pooh of some of the eggs he had dyed and hidden for his friends to find.

After all the delicious refreshments had been eaten up, Pooh's friends were so happy they couldn't wait any longer to find the Easter eggs that Pooh had hidden. So, off they went with their baskets, with Pooh following them so he could watch the fun, and maybe even help some of his smaller friends to find their eggs. 'Hurray', 'Yippee', 'Oh boy, I found one' were the things Pooh heard his friends exclaim. Pretty soon, most of the hidden eggs had been found, so Pooh decided to give some clues to his friends where the rest of the eggs might be found. At last, all of Pooh's eggs had been found, and each of his friends had found at least three eggs, enough to fill their baskets. Pooh was so happy that he was almost beside himself. And his friends were all happy too! All but Piglet.

Piglet had wandered off and not found any of Pooh's eggs, and he was crying.
Pooh asked Piglet what had happened and why he had not found any of the hidden eggs. Through his tears, Piglet explained that he had found what he thought was an egg, but it was too big and heavy for him to pick up and put in his basket. And besides, Piglet's basket wasn't big enough to put the egg in. So, Piglet was very unhappy and sad. Pooh became sad too, and so did all of his friends.

All at once, Pooh had an idea of how he could make Piglet feel happy, even though he had not found a proper egg. Pooh said to his friends, does anyone have an egg to share with Piglet? And do you know what happened then? Every one of Pooh's friends decided to give Piglet one of his eggs! All different colors, too! There were red ones, blue ones and all the many colors. In fact, there were too many eggs to put into Piglet's basket! Piglet did not know what to do. Should he continue to cry because he hadn't found an egg that would fit into his basket? Or, should he be happy because all Pooh's friends had given him an egg. You see, he couldn't fit all these eggs into his basket either.

Pooh could see that Piglet could not decide whether to laugh or cry, and he still wanted to help Piglet. So, Pooh said, so that all his friends could hear, 'Why don't we count all the eggs and divide them up so that everybody has an equal number? Pooh's friends all thought that was a very good idea, and one that would also make Piglet decide to be happy instead of sad. So they did what Pooh thought would help, and everyone got the same number of eggs, and they were all happy again, especially Piglet. Piglet hugged Pooh and told him what a great party it had been. And, that was what happened one sunny day in 100-acre wood.

On Integrity and Competence

I believe John Servais' blog today on NW Citizen got it right that the most important qualifications for elected officials and candidates for these offices are integrity and competence. It isn't always possible to expect more than these, but it's certainly not in the public interest to accept less!

The question is, 'how to determine whether people have sufficient integrity and competence for public service'? What is the test? How do we know candidates will have this integrity and competence, until they are actually tested in office? Are integrity and competence enough? Does some part of what 'competence' means related to actual experience and effectiveness on the job? If so, why isn't incumbency valued more? Are our expectations of elected officials reasonably aligned with reality?

These are really good questions for voters to consider, but they won't mean as much if voter's don't vote! My blog for July 29, titled Candidate Questionnaire & Decision Making attempts to find the right questions to ask that will help us know something more about candidates than just their campaign rhetoric on current issues, which, of course, is needed to get them elected.

Once people are elected, their actual performance toward the goals they promised can become a measure of their success. But, before they are in office, some 'leap of faith' is required to become elected. It has been said that 'politics is the art of the possible', and that is inherently true.

While someone has to serve in office, that person must also work with their peers, other elected officers, counterparts in other jurisdictions and the public. Of these groups, only the public can really hold any elected official truly responsible for their performance. This can be done through political pressure for positive change, or by threat of not being re-elected, as electeds quickly find out once they are in office! Sometimes, the pressure is strong to do things that will not be legal or sustainable enough for everyone over time. Sometimes, electeds find it expedient to pander to special interests to remain popular and stay in office. Where does integrity and competence fit into these situations?

Years ago, when I was first appointed to City Council, a former Council member sent me this quote, which I took as good advice: "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

The best test for which candidates would make the best elected officials probably combines the following ingredients among others: Do enough people know them to adequately judge their character, especially integrity and competence? Will they be good listeners? Will they have the courage to take action that might not be popular? Have they demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to those values that the community supports? Do they have hidden agendas? Will they be respectful and civil, regardless of temptations to the contrary? Will they fairly weigh and balance all arguments before settling on a preferred position?
Can they consistently separate fact from fiction, and fairly represent the long term public interest over divisive issues?

Aristotle considered Politics as a 'practical science', meaning rigid criteria weren't possible as with, say, mathematics for example. Democracy itself is not amenable to any one cookbook recipe, but dynamic and adaptable in nature, as it has to be. But politics without principle is a loser for everyone! It is always up to the citizens to figure out and then demand whatever principles we expect in our elected officials!

---------------------------------------------
One last thought on the subject of integrity and competence.
During the 2000 Presidential Primary, I strongly supported Bill Bradley for his integrity and competence. He didn't succeed in becoming President, or even as the Democrats candidate, but he did succeed in maintaining his integrity and competence!

Bradley has now written a new book, titled 'The New American Story'. which I have read with great interest. It is an ambitious, right-minded book which addresses many of the problems our nation, and we as the people, continue to have that are not being even adequately discussed by our elected officials in that other Washington, much less resolved.

Bradley's topics include America's role in the World; the Economy; Oil & the Environment; Pensions; Health Care; Education, all huge and daunting challenges! And, he does it from the perspective that each 'problem' is also an 'opportunity', then offers some very clear suggestions as to what actions can be taken to achieve the progress that would benefit all citizens. But, Bradley doesn't stop there, he estimates the costs for his recommendations and identifies funding sources for them, too.

The big 'surprise' is that all these things could all be accomplished by -ready for this?- reordering our priorities and redirecting existing funding! Of course, these aren't simple, small things, they are hard things that will require effort and political courage that only the American people can provide. There's that concept again, we can't expect our leaders to just 'handle it', can we?.

But, Bradley also does not play the partisan 'blame game' either. Oh no, there is enough blame to go around and then some! His chapters on 'Why the Republicans Can't' and 'Why he Democrats Won't' make it clear that there are some conundrums we've gotten ourselves into that have become entrenched obstacles to any real progress happening any time soon.

In his concluding chapters, Bradley explains why this 'New Story' is really 'good politics', and what citizens can do to help these problems become opportunities that we can get behind and make happen. I was inspired by this book, and I think others will be too!

Solar Power Case Study: An Old Idea With New Economics

During these wonderful sunny days in August, as I see my electric bills decline, I'm reminded of an article Whatcom Watch published for me last year. It is posted below for those who might want to consider using solar power themselves to save energy use and help protect the environment.

In late 2005, I attended a conference and exhibition at the Bellingham Ferry Terminal sponsored by Sustainable Connections and the Building Industry Association. One of the sessions focused on Solar Energy systems for homeowners as a means of saving on electric power costs and protecting the environment. A presentation by a local expert on renewable energy, Dana Brandt, particularly attracted my attention. Later, I contacted him for advice on the feasibility of installing a small Photovoltaic [PV] Solar Power generating system at my home.

Dana surveyed my home for potential sites that capture sunlight most of the day, and confirmed that my garage roof was a really good choice. The garage faces south and has a flat roof that gently slopes to the north, giving it a relatively unimpeded solar exposure during most of the day. This site also has the advantage of not significantly impacting views from any direction - an important consideration in maintaining good relationships with neighbors. Dana used a special instrument that allowed him to determine the maximum percentage of potentially available direct sunlight that could access a properly placed and angled array of solar panels, during all seasons of the year.

Costs & Feasibility

Based on this survey and the schematic he developed, Dana estimated the costs associated with a roof-mounted PV system with 1.52 kW generating capacity, assuming that all the generated DC power would be converted to AC power and fed back into the PSE grid through my electric meter. The system included 8 Sanyo PV Panels -each 3-feet by 4-feet, 4-inches- mounted side by side on adjustable aluminum frames, an assembly designed to withstand 200 mph winds. The total solar array surface area is 104 square feet and its length is 24 feet. The system uses a power inverter to convert DC power from the PV array to AC power, and a separate output meter to track both the total energy generated and instantaneous readouts. The entire system is hard-wired through my household electrical circuit breaker panel into my electric meter, a special type provided free by PSE [Puget Sound Energy] that is designed to track their net-metering system.

Based on my specific system design, Dana's proposal [December 2005] for the total installed cost of my PV system was $13,685 excluding any incentives. Using conservative estimating techniques to calculate payback, these were the results:

Taking into account the added resale value of my home, the PV system will payback in about 16 years. If I choose to ignore the increased value of the home as part of the payback, the payback becomes 25 years. The estimated life of the PV system itself is 30 years. Substantial increases in the cost of power will shorten this payback period.

The payback calculations included these incentives, tax credits and energy saving calculations that helped me to justify making this investment:

One-Time Incentives

Federal Income Tax Credit for Renewable Energy: $2,000
PSE Rebate [based on 1.52kW installed capacity]: $874
Washington State Sales Taxes are also waived as an additional incentive

Ongoing incentives:

PSE Net Metering [increases in proportion to rates]: $0.067807 per kWh
Washington State Production Incentive [9 years total]: $0.150 per kWh
Green Tags Certification Credits: $0.050 per kWh

For my historic rate of electrical usage, the PV system is expected to generate about 22% of my annual consumption, or about 1642 kWh per year. At peak production about 33% of my average needs will be produced. When I am not consuming power at the usual rate, my PV generated power sold to PSE may exceed the amount I buy from them.

Projected Annual Savings from Ongoing Incentives

PSE Net Metering: 1642 kWh/year X $0.007807/kWh = $111.34 per year
Washington State Incentive: 1642 kWh/year X $0.15/kWh = $246.30 per year
Green Tags Credits: 1642 kWh/year X $0.05/kWh = $82 per year
Total Estimated Savings from Ongoing Incentives [at current rates] = $439.64 per year

Because PSE charges more for power usage above 600 kWh per month, I will also almost always avoid having to pay for this more expensive power [$0.08484 per kWh]. This amounts to "peak shaving", which in this case saves me from having to use power that is 25% more expensive.

Most single-family homes use electric power at levels averaging between 15 kWh/day and 50 kWh/day, depending upon the number of people, appliances, lights and the intensity of use. My electric power use has averaged just over 20 kWh/day during the past 2 years [7347 kWh/year].

Installation and Commissioning

Based on the estimated economics, I decided to go ahead with the project and wrote Dana a check to procure the equipment and materials. These were delivered directly to my home and stored in the garage until the weather improved enough to begin installation. This relatively simple installation required 3 days, with most of the work done by Dana, with help from an experienced and licensed electrician he hired for one day. After completion, the PV system was tested, turned on and began to immediately generate power. Inspections by the City and PSE proved routine, and I first entered the power generation business during a sunny break!

Each step of this installation was recorded by digital camera, and the supporting paperwork and documentation was handled quickly. I was pleased to pay Dana the balance due and ask for his assistance in writing up the project for publication. Four PSE personnel came for a final inspection and short tour of the system with Dana. Look for this PV installation to be a stop on the 2006 Sustainable Connections tour.

Pollution Avoidance: A Hidden Benefit

Another great benefit from using PV solar power is avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from conventional power plants that burn fossil fuels. Dana estimates that a 1.52 KW PV system like mine typically saves the following pollution from occurring:

Carbon Dioxide [CO2]: 465.90 lbs/year or 13,977.0 lbs over 30 years

Nitrogen Oxides [NOX]: 0.90 lbs/yr or 27.03 lbs/30 yrs

Sulfur Dioxide [SO2]: 2.56 lb/yr or 76.75 lbs/30 yrs

Mercury [Hg]: 3.96 mg/yr or 118.8 mg/30 yrs

The actual pollution avoidance benefits we realize here in the Northwest are higher than these standard estimates because 80% of our energy normally comes from hydropower, which doesn't require burning fossil fuels. Therefore, only about 20% of these amounts derive from local power generation. But, because Bonneville Power doesn't scale back its hydropower generating ability, this avoids having to import energy produced from fossil fuels elsewhere, which means the actual pollution avoidance we experience in Washington is about 3.75 times the above the standard calculations above.

Conclusion: The New Energy Economics

The pollution avoidance realities outlined above have always been in existence, but were obscured by the benefits of low energy costs and an almost tacit acceptance of incremental environmental degradation. How easy it has been to ignore these impacts; almost like a frog in a pot of water, slowly being brought to a boil. Now that energy costs are rising rapidly, global warming is visibly happening and the economic gap between personal/family incomes and necessities is growing, we are suddenly able to see more clearly the impacts of continuing a 'business as usual' attitude toward how we live and use energy.

These national and global trends have directly led to some new economic realities that are now beginning to make sustainable practices more feasible and attractive. When an investment in a small PV energy system begins to pencil out, people will begin to notice, and some will be inclined to make similar investments. For example, the trend toward energy efficient appliances and vehicles is becoming more and more of a 'no-brainer'. Even with slightly higher first costs, these high efficiency machines and systems easily pay for themselves very quickly in reduced energy costs. More important, they continue to pay large dividends in avoided energy and pollution costs. Hopefully, these new economics will translate into more sustainable lifestyles as the preferred choice of many, not just a few.

Coupled with the new economics, more new high-tech and high efficiency devices are being developed to help curtail energy waste, but these are not -in themselves- the answer. There are no good substitutes for personal awareness, accepting responsibility and taking action. Consumption has its own limits, and its expensive consequences.

As Dana Brandt suggests, a great new 'take-away' message to offer is: "All you who care for the environment, and/or wish to be less dependent on foreign oil - the time has come that you can afford to do something about it. The confluence of an array of incentives and high energy prices makes solar power -and other highly energy efficient systems- accessible to nearly all of us"

Footnote: Two neighbors noticed the PV System installation and inquired what was happening. Both have subsequently asked Dana for proposals! Are there any others out there?

Waterfront Redevelopment: Mayoral Candidate Forum Responses

Here is additional information from my notes that I was unable to post earlier.

All Mayoral Candidates were asked to answer this question:
‘State briefly, your strongest argument on Waterfront Redevelopment for:
(a) Why it should proceed? [PRO] (b) Why it should not proceed? [CON]

Dan McShane:
Pro: Enormous opportunity, with public expectations for access to the water.

Con: Need to be careful and go slow in agreeing to a Master Plan that carries major funding challenges. City has abrogated its zoning responsibility. Is the Port’s plan worth the investment?

Doug Karlberg:
Pro: Should do it, because it is essential for our future -50 years or more..

Con: What is cleanup level? Port’s vision is being promoted like a machine. May disagree. Wants to keep a working waterfront. Too big. Fears local government will dismiss the public’s wishes, like Seattle did. Disliked legal challenge to public initiative.
Public input needs to be respected.

Seth Fleetwood:
Pro: Agrees this a rare opportunity. The Waterfront Futures Group report inspired him. Supports DOE’s Preferred Alternative for cleanup to fully meet State Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA] requirements, to exceed that level would have un-needed cost impacts that would outweigh any additional benefits

Con: Is it feasible? How will funding happen? Many details remain to be worked out. Inter-local Agreement binds Port and City, but need equitable partnership. Next Mayor and City Council will have to address these important decisions.

Don Keenan:
Pro: Getting good information, community effort and best minds will build consensus to achieve this enormous opportunity, with 100-year horizon. Chance to make waterfront Bellingham’s front door. WWU and NOAA as tenants very beneficial and exciting. Potential as business incubator is possible with mixed-use zoning. Connects to downtown, parks and other people places.

Con: Need to overcome the fear that has been generated. Big space to cleanup and redevelop!

Dan Pike:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment needs to go forward.

Con: Failure of leaders and local government to sell it better. Need to know level of adequate cleanup and how to retain a presence as a working waterfront. A large park is essential to economic development, but doesn’t have to be just on that site. What other tenants besides WWU and NOAA?

Gil Bernal:
Pro: Should do it. Great opportunity! Those who benefit should pay for it. Cleanup to DOE standards is OK. New jobs. What concessions are possible, particularly for public access? In Hawaii, all beaches are public.

Con: None. No downside.

Bob Ryan:
Pro: Waterfront redevelopment is the best opportunity since Bellingham was founded!

Con: Some hurdles remain: Public process in progress. City is responsible for infrastructure. Port responsible for cleanup and redevelopment. Financing options need to be known. Master Plan will define zoning. Economic benefits for City and Port. If Port wants more than City can provide, then development must pay its fair share. Olympia is an example of doing this sort of thing right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment: Remembering the Dundee Donut Shop

Years ago as a boy, I saw a catchy sign on the wall of a popular donut shop. It had a motto underneath, an illustration of two cartoon figures, each holding a large donut. One was smiling at a donut so fat that the hole was a mere dimple. The other bore a sour frown while contemplating a donut that looked more like a racing bike tire - all hole and very little donut. The accompanying motto said something like 'as through life you grow old, keep your eye on the donut and not the hole'.

I still remember the moral demonstrated so simply by that donut sign. One's viewpoint is strongly influenced by one's point of view. If one gets up every morning on the wrong side of the bed and decides to be grumpy and negative, that can become habit forming. We all have the power to decide which side of the bed we choose to get up from each morning. Folks who haven't learned this basic lesson are missing out on the real joys of life, and deserve to be the object of our sympathy.

This last question about Waterfront Redevelopment essentially asks the same question: is this a problem or an opportunity? I see it as such an opportunity that it would irresponsible NOT to pursue it vigorously, but also with care. So, that’s a reaction that begins with the opportunity side of the equation, but also does not forget much work needs to be done before committing to anything that unduly burdens anyone. In life, answers are rarely simple black or white, but many shades of the entire spectrum that lie in between. Please, let’s keep this in mind as the public process continues!

Note: I have decided to limit this blog to summarizing what my take was from the Mayoral candidate’s public statements and responses at this forum. Readers get to decide for themselves who got closer to the 'right' answers. One of these candidates will become our next Mayor, so it’s important to elect the one with an approach likely to build on achieving some version of the Vision the City has adopted from the Waterfront Futures Group recommendations.

But, that’s just my opinion!

No similar summary is planned for the other Primary races.

Last Night's Forum:Mayoral Candidates Opening Statements

Last night’s Candidate Forum at the County Council Chambers was a good one as Forums go. The format was appropriate, and offered candidates some choice in whether to speak only to their platforms or allow some audience questions. It also offered candidates some opportunity to both question their opponents and answer their opponent’s questions. I thought the format worked pretty well, because some unpredictability was introduced and it was hard for candidates to just gloss over some topics or simply run out the clock without addressing most issues in some limited way.

Our community owes its thanks for the League of Women Voters, KGMI Radio 790 and the Whatcom Independent for organizing and sponsoring this forum! It is in everyone’s best interest to be as informed as possible on issues, the candidates themselves, and where they stand on the issues.

Wow! I took a lot of notes but now need to figure out how to summarize 3 hours into the salient points I took away from this exercise. First, I’ll state up front that I do favor some candidates over others, but this synopsis will be as objective as possible in capturing my candid reactions while they are fresh in my mind.

So here goes my take on the Mayoral Candidates and their opening statements only: [Comments on responses to questions and closing statements may come later, time permitting]
Questions were asked in the same order from audience right to left. In future, it might be fairer to vary the order so that the same candidates did not always get the benefit of hearing everyone else’s statements.

Dan McShane: Took almost entire opening statement talking, about his accomplishments on the County Council and disparaging the City on subjects mostly centered on growth policy and Lake Whatcom. To hear Dan tell it, the City has done nothing right, and is mainly responsible for promoting sprawl and letting Lake Whatcom deteriorate. He also did have some proposals concerning establishing ‘new departments’ for neighborhoods and for Lake Whatcom, and changing some undefined City-wide ‘priorities, staff and budgets’. Very vague about details and how he was going to win Council support. One got the impression that Dan gets a lot of credit, but no blame. But, he was smooth and polished.

Doug Karlberg: Also spoke the entire time, with one notable positive about the City being about kids. He is against gentrification, because it reduces affordability. Wants to avoid what Sausalito, CA turned into, and prefers Skagit County as a model because it encourages economic development and discourages expensive condos. Feels trust in government is broken and wants greater citizen involvement, better goals & objectives. Came off mostly negative.

Seth Fleetwood: Seth performed the best I’ve ever seen him, but also spoke the entire time without reading notes. He came off as confident in his understandings, clear and succinct about identifying some main problems, and natural and engaged in his delivery. His theme was to protect what we have, citing growth as the number one problem facing the City now, among many other issues. Being a native son seemed to give him a slightly different history and perspective. Cited some positive actions, like the Growth Forum, he has initiated to help address growth and Lake Whatcom and allow our community to grow well. Some growth will need to happen but we get to decide how it happens. Believes in sustainability, preserving strong neighborhoods, and a positive community vision supported by leadership to make it happen. Came off as positive, collaborative and reasonable.

Don Keenan: Don read a thoughtful and fairly comprehensive prepared statement that seemed very natural, yet filled with some pretty focused information. His delivery seemed calm, sincere and measured to fit in as much as he could. His theme was to address needs first, then wants, while maintaining popular services like the Library, Greenways, and continuing downtown revitalization. He knows a lot about these things from his 7 years as Deputy Administrator. Lake Whatcom was a special focus with funding, collaboration, incentives, preservation, further density reduction, changing habits and enforcement as main elements. Open government, making planning & permitting more efficient, neighborhoods, compact urban growth and economic development were all important themes in his message. He believes that Waterfront Redevelopment is a great opportunity that must be pursued with careful attention to fiscal feasibility. It was a positive, ambitious message delivered with enthusiasm.

Dan Pike: Dan was the only candidate to allow time to answer questions from the audience, but only after he had made an opening statement. First, he slightly attacked Keenan’s comment about the current low employment situation still being insufficient to provide affordable homes for residents. Then he cited Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopment, Neighborhoods and Downtown revitalization as keys issues. He then took two questions, both from current County Planning Commissioners:
1) Dave Pros [Lake Samish] asked if the TDR program was viable, and whether urban villages could happen and accommodate infill. Pike answered that both concepts were flawed; that both needed receiving areas to make them work. Concepts are OK, but first City needs to fix its Zoning Codes to get predictability for City, citizens and developers. Design-based zoning was suggested.
2) 2) John Lesow [Point Roberts] asked how the City should go about alleviating its transportation Level of Service problem. Pike answered transportation is about a system, not just cars. Time then ran out.

Gil Bernal: Gil got a laugh when he asked if the audience needed a stretch. He cited FDR as saying be sincere, be short, and be seated. He cited family facts, military experience, his experience as firefighter, EMT and police officer. He stands for many good ideas and is now having a learning experience. Cautioned against spending what we don’t have, citing growing up in a mining town with cyclical economy. Believes clean water is imperative. Wants more excitement about these elections and a big turnout. Feels the waterfront redevelopment is an amazing opportunity, but cautious about cost impacts to City. Supports ‘less management’. Likes getting out to citizens, with slogan ‘what can I do for you?’ Buoyant personality, with little expectation for election, but enjoying it anyway!

Bob Ryan: Bob seemed at ease, succinct as usual, knowledgeable and comfortable with the issues, as he should be with his almost 12 years of service on the City Council, and in other local and regional capacities. His opening remark said much in few words; ‘We must have been doing something right with all the top 10 lists we’re on, but there’s always room for improvement’. Or something like that. He said our biggest issue is growth – in all its facets. Cited the need for greater density in the City and UGA and its relationship to property values. Now, the economic incentives are to promote sprawl, not prevent it, partly because there are enough 5-acre lots vested in the unincorporated County to take all the projected growth for the next 20 years! Cited the need for better mechanisms to achieve the results we claim to want. GMA is good, but making it work is not a short and easy job, but a long and hard one. Four main points: 1) The location of population centers needs long-range planning; does our vision fit this? 2) Millions have been spent on protecting Lake Whatcom, but it’s not working yet. TDRs, acquisition OK, but stormwater is biggest problem and needs addressing. 3) Neighborhood character needs to be sustained and plans updated. 4) Emergency management needs an integrated, countywide system that also enables cities to do what they need to do. Ryan has taken incident management training and is certified in EM in Washington State. He was the only candidate to emphasize the importance of Emergency Management in today’s reality.

Is Charter Review Important?

Below is an article I had published in the Cascadia Weekly not long ago. Since then, I'm pleased to report that the City Council has agreed to have City staff prepare three items for Council review and approval, as follows:

1. A Resolution stating that Council policy will be to require holding a public hearing on the subject of Charter Review, at least once every five years, although it could happen more freqeuntly. Council must still approve this Resolution, in some version.

2. Language appropriate for a ballot measure that would consider changing Charter language to gender neutral. Council must approve this in some version before it is submitted to the ballot this year.

3. Information to be brought forward for Council consideration concerning a proposed Code of Ethics covering elected City Council members and possibly other elected officials. This will become a topic of deliberation and determination of what further action might be taken.

All three items respond positively to different aspects of Charter issues, but none will occur without further Council or public deliberations and appropriate voting. Each of these proposed changes represent small, but significant departures from past practice, that should be seen as the cautious first steps that could enable future Charter reviews and revisions to occur more regularly and easily. Stay tuned!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Our City Charter was first adopted over 35 years ago in 1972, and has remained relatively unchanged since then. I think our Charter ought to contain a provision for periodic review by the City Council and the public. Some changes have been made to the Charter, by City Council action and public ballot.

Curiously, there has been resistance to even doing the basic research needed for Council to debate this issue. Until Joan Beardsley came to office in 2006, the Council did not have four members who agreed to have staff research how Charter Revisions could be made! Now, that research has been done and, in early June, a Council work session will determine whether additional action will be considered in time for this year’s ballot.

Charter Changes

From time to time Charter changes have been made, motivated by changes in State law, and clarification necessity. Several public initiatives and referenda have interpreted the Charter inaccurately, which has caused unnecessary confusion and contention. Our Charter is not always very clear in its brevity, and does sometimes require legal opinions for clarification. To achieve more Charter clarity, some sort of regular review is necessary.

Minor Charter changes have been enacted by Council action. Others have been placed on the ballot for the voters to decide, like the appointment of Finance Director. Several other Washington cities have undertaken Charter reviews and changes by various methods. Everett, Tacoma and Vancouver offer good examples of what Bellingham might consider doing in reviewing its Charter. All three cities approved a provision that their Charters must be reviewed every 5 or 10 years.

Methods of Charter Review & Costs

A range of review options exists, from doing nothing to a process that requires electing a Charter Review Committee and submitting their recommendations to a public vote, like Whatcom County did recently. Estimated costs for this latter option range between $20,000 and $220,000, depending upon scope of effort, and excluding any fiscal impacts of changes that might be adopted.

Intermediate options, such as Council review and approval based upon necessity or cosmetics; Council submission of ballot measures; Council review and submission of ballot measures from recommendations of an appointed advisory committee; Public initiative, and others are all possible. Depending upon the Council’s perception of need, each option has both a price tag and an associated staff and public input requirements.

Resistance to Charter Review Proposals

Aside from simple inertia; denials - like the sometimes heard remark to the effect ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’; concerns over costs [including staff time]; potential for political discord; and blind fear of change, there are no reasons for not reviewing our Charter periodically! Are these concerns sufficient to prevent us from beginning a simple and prudent review process? Charters – including our own Constitution - are intended to be living documents that establish the framework for the policies of government, not static monuments to the status quo of long ago. Does simple reference to ‘applicable law’ mean anything that can be understood by the average citizen?

Some people are afraid of what might change, and prefer the status quo because it is the system they are used to. Others fear ‘hidden’ agendas, like changing the form of local government to a Strong Council/City Manager, for example. No system is a universal panacea; about 70% of cities use a form of Strong Mayor system, with the remaining 30% of cities using Strong Council forms of government. Both systems work, but contain different allocations of power. In every case, it is the people -elected representatives and citizens- that make any system work.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Rather than a costly, full scale Charter Review like Whatcom County’s process, I believe there are better options for Bellingham. First, simply decide to have the idea of periodic Charter Review on the November ballot. Such a ballot measure proposed by Council would specify only the frequency for Charter Reviews, leaving the method to be determined by future Councils according to adaptive management principles. The public needs a voice in deciding whether to have regular Charter reviews, and what future changes ought to be made. Let them have it!

BTV10: Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants

Good morning Hamsters,

Here's an earlier version of a piece I had published in the Cascadia Weekly, the subject of which remains in progress.
Those who agree could help by letting the City know your wishes!
Credit for the title goes to former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
-----------------------------
Improving public communications by televising Council meetings on BTV10 has been surprisingly successful. How many people do you hear talking about something they saw on the City’s educational and governmental cable channel lately, since the audio-visual capabilities of Council Chambers were upgraded, the quality of the broadcasts improved and the number of viewers increased?

As successful as BTV10 has become in making our local government more transparent and inclusive, it can become even better - providing some minor additional funding is dedicated from cable franchise fees to pay for it.

I believe we need to televise the Council afternoon Work Sessions, because these are often earlier, more candid exchanges that inform the action the Council takes at it’s evening regular meetings. For one example, PowerPoint presentations made in the afternoon don’t always get repeated at night, despite their importance. Citizens have a right to that kind of information, at their convenience!

To make additional funding available to televising all Council meetings will require four Council votes to slightly increase the cable franchise fee. Currently, the City is using only 4.25% of the 5% that is available to it. The first 3% goes to the General Fund, and all funding over that is dedicated to BTV10 use. By contrast, the County uses its entire 4%, all of which goes into its General Fund.

Each additional 1/4% is currently equivalent to about $35,000 in revenues per year, so something in excess of $100,000 per year is now not being used, which means this funding source is permanently forfeited.

Determining how much additional funding is needed to cover the expense of televising and airing all Council work sessions is needed to define how much additional revenue is needed. Each 1/4% increase would cost cable TV subscribers about 20 cents each month or $2.40 per year. But, Council needs to decide to direct staff to determine the information needed before considering any increase.

Some other options exist to provide coverage of the afternoon work sessions.
One is to film them and produce reference DVDs for viewing by anyone unable to attend the meetings, or wanting to review it again. Already, the City has this capability, since all recorded images are captured digitally. The City would likely need some extra manpower to extend production editing to cover all the extra afternoon meetings not now being filmed.
Also, Streaming Video files could be made available via Internet on the City’s web site. But, without the afternoon sessions being actually filmed, none of these options is possible.

Some have suggested that Council meetings could be broadcast live and this too is possible. Another option might be to show heavily attended meetings in progress on monitors located outside Council Chambers. Seattle does this now, and it is useful with those meetings or events that attract extraordinary interest. Space in the Council Chambers is limited, and other venues are not equipped for the same quality of filming.

One of the Council goals, when it decided to upgrade its audio-video capability in 2004, was to make these Chambers a preferred venue for important public meetings. In the same way that installing artificial turf at Civic Stadium increased that facilities usage by as much as six times, the enhanced audio-visual capability in Council Chambers is now having a similar effect. Still, a significant increase in the number -and type- of televised public meetings there is still possible.

Despite the steady stream of complaints from local corporate media about costs to taxpayers and allegations of city ‘spin’ on issues, these televised meeting broadcasts do capture important presentations, announcements, discussion of issues and Council voting in unadulterated form, for use at viewers’ convenience. That feature alone, is a huge improvement over any coverage that corporate media could possibly provide, in terms of accuracy, completeness or candor. It remains a mystery why some local media continue to disparage BTV10, because they –and the public- are such obvious major beneficiaries of it!

Maybe the media is as uncomfortable with such unforgiving public scrutiny as some decision-makers appear to be? Information is power, so why not provide it to people, unadulterated, and un-spun by anyone or any organization?
WYSIWYG means 'what you see is what you get'. Seems like a good goal to me, but that's just my opinion!