That title should read 'Focuses on Phosphorus', but maybe the misspelling will add a little humor to an otherwise pretty serious and sobering analysis.
Yesterday's blog promised more on this important subject, so here it is.
My review of the 58-page DRAFT Report recently produced by the consulting firm Parametrix, confirmed what I had suspected; the job we face in reducing the phosphorus level in our Reservoir will be difficult, costly and require many years to achieve.
But it can be done.
And, the sooner we get started, the shorter will be the time required, and the lower the overall costs.
That said, here is a synopsis.
The report is divided into 7 sections, subdivided as shown below:
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Structure of this Report
1.2 The Lake and its Watershed
1.3 Lake Phosphorus
1.3.1 Phosphorous and Lake Ecosystems
1.3.2 Lake Phosphorus Water Quality Criteria
1.3.3 Phosphorus in Lake Whatcom
1.4 Phosphorus Sources
1.4.1 Typical Sources and Pathways of Phosphorus to Lakes
1.4.2 Phosphorus Sources to Lake Whatcom
1.4.3 Future Source Identification
2. CURRENT CITY STORMWATER PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PROGRAM
2.1 Stormwater Retrofit Program
2.2 Mapping and BMP [Best Management Practice] Coverage
2.3 Monitoring and Maintenance Program
2.4 Ordinances
2.5 Acquisition/Easement/Transfrable Development Rights Programs
2.6 Enactment and Enforcement of Strict Development Restrictions
2.7 Yard Debris Collection Program
2.8 Street Sweeping Program
2.9 Incentives to Discourage Personal Motor Vehicle Use
2.10 Septic System Inspection and Certification Program
2.11 Planned Future Efforts
3. AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT BMPS AND CITY BMP PERFORMANCE
3.1 Infiltration/Bioretention
3.2 Filtration
3.3 Wet/Dry Ponds
3.4 Swales
3.5 Wetlands
3.6 Review of City BMP Monitoring Data
3.7 Performance of City BMPS
4. PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO LAKE WHATCOM: PRELIMINARY APPROACH
4.1 Establishing Target Phosphorus Loading
4.2 Estimating Phosphorus Loading Rates by Land Use
4.2.1 Undeveloped Land Loading Rates (Smith Creek)
4.2.2 Developed Land Loading Rates (Silver Beach Creek)
4.3 Estimating Current and Future Phosphorus Loading Rates
4.3.1 Current Loading Estimate
4.3.2 Future Loading Estimate
4.4 Estimating Future Phosphorus Loading Rates Using Treatment BMPS
4.4.1 Future Development and Existing Development with South Campus BMP
4.4.2 Future Development with South Campus BMP, Existing Development with Current BMPS
4.4 Method Assumptions
5. OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING THE CITY'S PHOSPHORUS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
5.1 Enhancing Phosphorus Treatment BMPS
5.2 Applying BMPS to Single Lots
5.3 Updating and/or Adding Phosphorus Control Policies
5.4 Homeowner Policies
5.5 Waterfowl Control Options
5.6 Phosphorus Control Incentive Programs
5.7 Education Programs
5.8 Compliance Enforcement Programs
5.9 Stormwater Retrofit Program
5.10 Discontinue Deficit Financing of Infrastructure
5.11 Develop a Stormwater Index
5.12 Inventory/Mapping of TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs
5.13 Expanding the TDR, Acquisition, and Easement Programs to Include an Ecosystem Marketplace
5.14 Recommended Management Options
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
7. REFERENCES
-------------------
As you can see this is not a superficial report!
It ranks phosphorus source areas in the following order of importance:
• Lawns/Landscaped Areas
• Residential Streets, Driveways & Sidewalks
• Stream Erosion
• Land Clearing & Other Disturbed Surfaces
• Animal Waste
• Stormwater Treatment Facilities
• Household Products
• Septic Systems
The main surprise in this listing is ' Stormwater Treatment Facilities.'
That means the ones in use aren't working very well to remove phosphorus - in fact some may be adding it!
That is not good news for people who believe that 'Stormwater Treatment Facilities' are the answer to everything.
If the current, worsening stuation weren't bad enough, existing zoning could allow an additional 3208 homes in this watershed which could add 16,000 more residents.
With that prospect, it would be prudent to establish, now, a target phosphorus loading that can be used to calculate what additional steps will need to be taken to achieve our watershed mangement goals.
Three options exist for establishing a target phosphorus loading rate to lake Whatcom:
1. No net increase.
2. Percent reduction over current loading estimate
3. TMDL
While we wait for the TMDL Report to get issued by DOE, time is wasting!
I believe setting an interim target loading rate ought to be done without further delay.
A value, not to exceed 20 micrograms per liter, would suffice and allow us to get on with monitoring phosphorus loading, at least by tributary.
That is one action the City -and County- need to take soon.
There are many other actions that are recommended, but they all help achieve that one.
--------------
Without going into more detail here, the report itself is available for those interested.
But, the Report's concluding remarks make a good summary:
"The City has developed a comprehensive phosphorus control program that is achieving significant success in a difficult aspect of watershed management.
In order to maximize program effectiveness, the City should work with the County to develop a focused yet holistic approach to controlling phosphorus in stormwater runoff to Lake Whatcom from both existing and future development across the entire watershed.
It is recognized that although this report suggests opportunities specific to the City for improving its stormwater phosphorus control program (i.e., its portion of the Lake Whatcom watershed), phosphorus control efforts in other portions of the watershed are equally, if not more, important.
As noted, 98 percent of developable land in the watershed is located in the County.
Therefore, all recommendations, as well as all components of the City's current program, should be reviewed for opportunities to involve the County, DNR, and other entities and/or encourage them to incorporate similar management approaches when applicable.
Overall, findings of this review and evaluation are as follows:
• Phosphorus is difficult to control as evidenced by the City of Bellingham's experience as well as similar experiences documented by othe municipalities nationwide.
• Review of the literature and other stormwater programs indicates the City of Bellingham has, and is, employing the range of available technologies and BMPs for phosphorus control.
• Review of the literature also shows that the City of Bellingham could enhance its current program with additional emphasis on programmatic policies as well as improve existing treatment BMP performance.
• Future source identification and loading analysis may necessitate a re-evaluation and re-prioritization of the City's phosphorus stormwater management system."
----------------
So there you have it.
We're doing a lot of stuff in our 2 % of the watershed, but it ain't working too well.
We need to do some more stuff, including changing human behaviors and convincing the County to do the same.
Once we get all that done, it will still likely take many years to stabilize the lake water quality.
But, it can be done.
And, it must be done, because we don't have another water source nearly as good as Lake Whatcom!
----------------
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
Lake Whatcom Reservoir: A Necessary Restructuring
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis
------------------------
Those of us who have been working to preserve our drinking water source had reason to take heart today.
But, what happened certainly should not be viewed as a 'silver bullet' by any means.
Instead, it should be seen as another positive step in the right direction, a move to secure, strengthen and to work smarter on the substantial efforts being devoted to solving the hard problem we face.
Do not make the the easy mistake of under estimating our problem!
It will literally take our lifetimes, and maybe then some, to stabilize our reservoir and protect it in perpetuity.
But, it will be worth it!
Today, the City Council unamimously encouraged the Mayor & County Executive to bring forward a new Interlocal Agreement to reflect the proposal they presented.
Tomorrow, the County Council will have the same opportunity.
With their support, a new working agreement will happen.
It is guaranteed to be more collaborative, because it will be equally and reliably funded by both juridictions.
As the jurisdictions with zoning, enforcement and related duties, it makes sense that this structure be shared between City and County.
The cost will be about $150,000 more than the current Lake Whatcom, split between City and County.
Most of that will likely be spent on hiring a Director to focus full-time on preserving Lake Whatcom.
That is a critical hire.
But the structure itself will definitely get City & County aboard the same galley, and pulling oars together in a direction both entities can agree upon.
That is a step in the right direction!
It's called accentuating the positive.
Another benefit will be to expand the City's Watershed Advisory Board to include County members, and have the resulting group report directly to -the Director!
That gives their recommendations more visibility, coordination and clout.
All of those things are improvements over what we have now.
Both City & County can benefit from each others knowledge, experience and common goals.
Rather than continuing a system of finger-pointing, competition and excuses, the new arrangement promotes cooperation and results.
The tip-off that this was truly a good faith effort was the obvious mutual respect shown by the Mayor and the County Executive!
That has been a long time coming, and it is an important element that has been missing.
And, taking this step now, before the election, insures that the incoming Mayor and Executive will be pre-committed to support this new management structure.
------------------
On related matters, the City also received preliminary reports on its Water Source Protection Plan update and on the existing Lake Whatcom Management Plan.
The WSPP will be reported more fully later, on October 22 for the WSPP.
The LWMP Update will be presented at a joint Council Review Meeting on November 1.
The City's Comprehensive Plans for its Water, Sewer and Stormwater Systems are also undergoing periodic reviews.
Adjustments in rates are likely, but these would be phased in over time.
The twin guiding principles are these:
• Adequacy of overall revenues
• Equity in collecting revenues
Finally, a Draft Stormwater Plan for the Lake Whatcom Watershed was presented.
This will become a section of the City's overall Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and focuses specifically on the issue of phosphorus in stormwater.
This Plan itemizes what steps the City is currently taking, what it is proposing to do, and what other activities should be considered to limit phosphorous generation.
This subject warrants its own blog, at a later time.
--------------------
------------------------
Those of us who have been working to preserve our drinking water source had reason to take heart today.
But, what happened certainly should not be viewed as a 'silver bullet' by any means.
Instead, it should be seen as another positive step in the right direction, a move to secure, strengthen and to work smarter on the substantial efforts being devoted to solving the hard problem we face.
Do not make the the easy mistake of under estimating our problem!
It will literally take our lifetimes, and maybe then some, to stabilize our reservoir and protect it in perpetuity.
But, it will be worth it!
Today, the City Council unamimously encouraged the Mayor & County Executive to bring forward a new Interlocal Agreement to reflect the proposal they presented.
Tomorrow, the County Council will have the same opportunity.
With their support, a new working agreement will happen.
It is guaranteed to be more collaborative, because it will be equally and reliably funded by both juridictions.
As the jurisdictions with zoning, enforcement and related duties, it makes sense that this structure be shared between City and County.
The cost will be about $150,000 more than the current Lake Whatcom, split between City and County.
Most of that will likely be spent on hiring a Director to focus full-time on preserving Lake Whatcom.
That is a critical hire.
But the structure itself will definitely get City & County aboard the same galley, and pulling oars together in a direction both entities can agree upon.
That is a step in the right direction!
It's called accentuating the positive.
Another benefit will be to expand the City's Watershed Advisory Board to include County members, and have the resulting group report directly to -the Director!
That gives their recommendations more visibility, coordination and clout.
All of those things are improvements over what we have now.
Both City & County can benefit from each others knowledge, experience and common goals.
Rather than continuing a system of finger-pointing, competition and excuses, the new arrangement promotes cooperation and results.
The tip-off that this was truly a good faith effort was the obvious mutual respect shown by the Mayor and the County Executive!
That has been a long time coming, and it is an important element that has been missing.
And, taking this step now, before the election, insures that the incoming Mayor and Executive will be pre-committed to support this new management structure.
------------------
On related matters, the City also received preliminary reports on its Water Source Protection Plan update and on the existing Lake Whatcom Management Plan.
The WSPP will be reported more fully later, on October 22 for the WSPP.
The LWMP Update will be presented at a joint Council Review Meeting on November 1.
The City's Comprehensive Plans for its Water, Sewer and Stormwater Systems are also undergoing periodic reviews.
Adjustments in rates are likely, but these would be phased in over time.
The twin guiding principles are these:
• Adequacy of overall revenues
• Equity in collecting revenues
Finally, a Draft Stormwater Plan for the Lake Whatcom Watershed was presented.
This will become a section of the City's overall Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and focuses specifically on the issue of phosphorus in stormwater.
This Plan itemizes what steps the City is currently taking, what it is proposing to do, and what other activities should be considered to limit phosphorous generation.
This subject warrants its own blog, at a later time.
--------------------
Sunday, October 7, 2007
IT'S BUDGET TIME AGAIN! -A $200 Million Exercise
This subject is so boring to some folks, that I've decided to give them a choice;
Read the quips, then quit.
Or, scroll down to read the recommendations developed by our Budget Advisory Committee after they studied the City's budget process for over a year.
---------------------------
Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. - Bokonon-
Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer.
Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get out.
Wiker's Law: Government expands to absorb revenue and then some.
Weiler's Law: Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself.
Langsam's Law: Everything depends.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
The Sausage Principle: People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.
Jacquin's Postulate on Democratic Government: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Sevareid's Law: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant. --John Simon--
======================
As most folks know, the City Council's main roles are to pass legislation to set City policy, and to approve the annual budget needed to pay for the services and programs the City provides.
But, the budget is where these things come together.
After the contentious 2004 budget sessions, which seemed to demonstrate a progressively worsening 'Gator' gap between projected revenues and expenditures, the Council decided to get a diverse citizen's committee together to review its process through new eyes.
We did that, set up the BAC, spent considerable staff time in briefing them, then awaited their recommendations, which are printed below for those who wish to read them.
During this process, some predictable things happened.
There was controversy about some of the appointments.
There were more reports and meetings than most could easily tolerate.
There was discomfort among some staff about some of the questions that were asked.
There was considerable learning that took place.
There was an attempt to evaluate the 'Priorities of Government'.
There were some attitudes, grandstanding and personal prejudices displayed.
There was an ad hoc, competing group set up for political purposes.
There was more demand for staff time than was contemplated.
There was a small rebellion that demanded the BAC ask more of its own questions.
There was an eventual loss of enthusiasm experienced by BAC, staff and Council.
There was a final push to summarize findings.
There were the inevitable mixed feelings of achievement, disappointment, relief and encouragement.
Some Council members were relieved when the BAC ended.
Some wanted it to continue in some fashion.
Some had felt it wasn't necessary in the first place, if Council had just had the courage to do its job.
Some thanked the BAC members for their service.
Some may have thanked the BAC for acting as a human shields.
In the end, this was probably a worthwhile exercise that produced some good ideas -some of which were already being considered.
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Bellingham City Council
Monday, June 12, 2006
==================
ECONOMIC VITALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We were specifically requested to provide a recommendation regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds. We provide in the list of recommendations below guidelines for the allocation of economic development funds. We also provide additional recommendations that speak directly to City Council goals regarding the development of a more diverse and sustainable economy, continuing to support a high quality of life, and increasing the number of high paying jobs in Bellingham.
Recommendation #1: Regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds, we note that $205,640 in grants was given to 7 community organizations in 2005. Reports from these organizations are highly variable and tend to focus on the activities undertaken with the grant money but not on the economic impact of the activities. Our committee found it was not possible to do an adequate review of the return on investment from the grants made and therefore we are unable to provide a specific recommendation on current allocations of Economic Development funds. However, one grant recipient, the Small Business Development Center, stood out positively in our review. To be able to better analyze the allocation of Economic Development funds in the future we recommend the City of Bellingham adopt process improvements such as the following:
1. All entities applying for grants should provide written statements of purpose and explanations for what they believe will be accomplished with the grant. Sample work products or deliverables should be encouraged.
2. Key criteria for evaluating proposals should include the expected impact of funded work on economic vitality within the City. Specifically, funds should be used for programs that enhance business retention, expansion, attraction, and redevelopment within the city boundaries. All qualified requests should have measurable outcomes that improve the City’s economy – such as increasing sales taxes, B&O taxes, etc.
3. Grant approvals should include the approvers’ signatures and rationale for approval (see recommendation below for Economic Advisory Group.)
4. All organizations receiving grants must provide year-end reports documenting what was accomplished with the grant.
Recommendation #2: Establish a plan and create a senior level planner position within the Executive Department in city government to guide the economic vitality of the city so that the city can fund the services that support the high quality of life we wish to sustain. This person’s responsibilities would include:
1. Proactively meeting with local businesses of all types to discuss their needs
2. Convene a regular business roundtable as a means of building better city-business relations.
3. Assist business in navigating government regulatory requirements
4. Assist new business in assessing opportunities in Bellingham and work with existing businesses to maximize the retention of those businesses within the city.
5. Be the conduit for communicating business perspectives to local government and be the coordination point for economic issues with the port, the county and state.
6. Evaluating other cities’ economic development plans to determine “best practices” and incorporating these practices into Bellingham’s plans.
7. Develop an economic strategic plan for the COB including an analysis of local business/economic trends
8. Provide an annual “state of the city economy” report to the Mayor and City Council
The individual in the position should have experience in the private sector; some formal training in economics or a related field would be considered a plus, but could be offset by experience. We also envision a selection process that would include members of the business community (see next item). The position should report directly to the mayor, thereby assuring proper access and communication to the executive and legislative departments of the city government.
The on-going funding for this position would come from the increased tax revenues realized by the efforts of the individual. Attracting just one high-paying job employer, or retaining a current employer considering leaving the city, would more than cover the cost of the position. For the first year or two we recommend funding all or part of the employment costs by using funds from the current Economic Development fund.
Recommendation #3: Form an Economic Advisory Group of local business representatives to provide input to City Council on matters related to economic vitality and to assist in the selection of the City’s Economic Development Liaison.
Recommendation #4: Commission a series of studies to determine what businesses were and are currently located within the city limits, with information on the number of jobs, wages, etc. in each sector. For example, the City might request the information for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. This information will form part of the analytical foundation upon which an economic development plan can be created.
Recommendation #5: Promote the creation of new, high wage jobs by offering a B&O tax credit (see Tacoma example). This direct incentive would be a tangible statement of the city’s resolve to foster high wage jobs across all components of private sector employers. While insufficient data is available at this time to assess the costs of the program, on judgment we believe it will be self-funding due to the incremental jobs it will create.
Recommendation #6: Charge the new Economic Development Liaison and the Economic Advisory group with creating a written economic development plan for the city of Bellingham. This is an imperative. The COB must take control of economic development and plan for it, not allow it to evolve haphazardly.
Recommendation #7: In addition to the already identified downtown/waterfront development priority, identify other business “clusters”, for example health care, marine services and organic/natural products industries where Bellingham might evolve into regional centers of excellence. Task forces for each cluster should be formed to facilitate economic development and high paying job creation for that cluster.
==================
“JAWS” RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: The City should consider raising property taxes each year by the allowable 1% (about $0.12 million a year). These additional funds should be banked in the GF reserves to protect against out year deficits and used to pre-fund LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B).
Recommendation #2: Any GF surpluses should be used to increase GF reserves and pre-fund the LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B). The City should establish a policy to assign surplus GF revenues (i.e., beyond that required to meet the 12% reserve requirement) to these pension funds.
Recommendation #3: The City should commit to fully fund its LEOFF-1 obligations by 2021. If future trends play out as expected, this implies continued annual contributions from the GF, growing from $1.3 million in 2006 to $2.1 million in 2011, $3.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2021.
Recommendation #4: Once the LEOFF-1 Fire Pension Fund is fully funded, the revenues collected from the 22.5¢ property tax and tax on fire-insurance premiums, currently allocated to the fire pension fund, should be reassigned. Initially, these revenues should be assigned to the other LEOFF-1 obligations. After 2021, these property tax revenues could become part of the City’s GF.
Recommendation #5: The City should continue, both on its own and through the Association of Washington Cities, to seek state assistance in paying these LEOFF-1 obligations. *We noted last year, in our review of the Fire Department, that a typical Bellingham firefighter enjoys an annual salary (exclusive of benefits) at least $14,000 more than highly skilled technical staff working in other departments. The City should both explain and justify this difference or work to reduce it.
Recommendation #6: The City should bargain aggressively with its unions to shift increasing amounts of benefit costs (primarily for health insurance premiums) from the City to employees.
Recommendation #7: The City should bargain aggressively with the firefighter union to, over time, bring firefighter compensation in line with that for employees in other unions/ departments.* This shift in compensation should recognize differences among groups of employees in, as examples, the requirements for prior education and training, provision of on-the-job training, on-the-job risks, and the number of qualified applicants seeking these jobs.
Recommendation #8: The City should explain the basis for growth in employee compensation below that of inflation and population growth. In particular, does City management plan for a decline in the amount and quality of services offered to City residents?
Recommendation #9: The City should explain why the budgets for the police and fire departments are expected to increase more rapidly than the overall GF. For example, are costs in these two departments expected to increase rapidly, or is the City planning to increase the level of service provided by these departments?
Recommendation #10: The City should use alternative qualitative and quantitative methods to estimate future GF revenues and expenses, including sensitivity and scenario analysis. In addition, the City should periodically review the accuracy of its past forecasts (backcasting).
Recommendation #11: The City should include in the annual budget document a discussion and explanation of expected trends in GF revenues, expenditures and reserves and how and why they differ from historical trends (Appendix A). *We do not discuss Charges for Goods and Services and Other Revenues because they are subject to definitional changes over time and because they are smaller revenue sources than the taxes.
==================
BUDGET POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: Adopt a policy on target levels of service – including mechanisms for determining whether funds are being spent efficiently to meet the desired service levels.
Recommendations related to policy #1:
a) Divide this policy into a guiding principle (noting the difference between principal and principle) and two separate policies
b) The discussion about providing a healthy balance of services to residents and quality of life should be moved up to the list of guiding principles (section in budget immediately above budget policies)
c) There should be a budget policy – or goal statement – to say that the city strives to have revenues sufficient to provide a particular service level.
o We recommend that the City conduct a study or have one prepared to determine appropriate benchmarks and target service levels for each department and key function. This work should be done as soon as possible. Without this information it is not possible to know if expenditures to maintain or improve service levels are money well spent; what cuts might be acceptable when cuts are needed; etc.
o We recommend that the study include a statement about the frequency with which the target service levels should be reviewed, by whom, and how.
d) There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. See recommendation 3 for detail.
Recommendation #2: Revise existing budget policy #3 to ensure it provides a pragmatic guide with regards to employee compensation.
Recommendations related to policy #3:
Delete the second sentence of the policy. Compensation levels for city workers should exceed compensation levels for workers in the private sector only if the city is unable to fill open positions with qualified workers.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new policy on banking excess revenues
There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. The City of Bellingham should bank excess revenues received in any given year to minimize the impact of rising health care costs and known pension (LEOFF-1) obligations.
Recommendation:
We recommend that excess revenues be banked to minimize the future impact of known pension obligations and, possibly, health care costs for current City workers. (We note the creation of pension funds by cities such as the City of Everett for this purpose.)
Recommendation #4: Establish a new policy on public involvement
The City of Bellingham should adopt a new policy to encourage more public involvement in the budget process. The BAC notes the absence of any policy regarding public involvement. We recommend the addition of the following new policy. Rather than a separate recommendation to the City of Bellingham, (COB), our committee suggests this be included with the recommendations from the “Policies” committee.
Recommendations for wording related to this new policy:
The City of Bellingham shall provide for systematic, transparent and ongoing citizen involvement and input, through regular surveys and other feedback mechanisms, of city residents to help determine funding priorities.
Regardless of the method, the process would be transparent, systematic and ongoing. Our committee recommends a community involvement process that is:
• Inclusive and representative of all neighborhoods with an opportunity for every resident to participate.
• An ongoing, systematic process that includes both an opportunity for citizen input and process for ongoing feedback and evaluation.
• A timeline of January to June in the year preceding the upcoming budget.
Recommendation #5: Provide a link to the city’s investment policy
RE: General Operating Policy #8
The City will use the ‘Prudent Person’ policy when investing funds. Preservation and safety of assets is a higher priority than return on investment. The City’s investment policy provides greater detail on this subject.
Recommendation #6: This policy is not a budget policy, but rather an operational guideline.
RE: General Operating Policy #9
“The City will use recycled paper whenever costs are less than or similar to costs for virgin paper stocks.”
Suggestion:
The City could develop scorecards for the various departments to encourage savings or efficiencies since it already has five year forecasts by department, division and program.
Read the quips, then quit.
Or, scroll down to read the recommendations developed by our Budget Advisory Committee after they studied the City's budget process for over a year.
---------------------------
Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. - Bokonon-
Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer.
Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get out.
Wiker's Law: Government expands to absorb revenue and then some.
Weiler's Law: Nothing is impossible for the man who does not have to do it himself.
Langsam's Law: Everything depends.
Grossman's Misquote: Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
The Sausage Principle: People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.
Jacquin's Postulate on Democratic Government: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Sevareid's Law: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant. --John Simon--
======================
As most folks know, the City Council's main roles are to pass legislation to set City policy, and to approve the annual budget needed to pay for the services and programs the City provides.
But, the budget is where these things come together.
After the contentious 2004 budget sessions, which seemed to demonstrate a progressively worsening 'Gator' gap between projected revenues and expenditures, the Council decided to get a diverse citizen's committee together to review its process through new eyes.
We did that, set up the BAC, spent considerable staff time in briefing them, then awaited their recommendations, which are printed below for those who wish to read them.
During this process, some predictable things happened.
There was controversy about some of the appointments.
There were more reports and meetings than most could easily tolerate.
There was discomfort among some staff about some of the questions that were asked.
There was considerable learning that took place.
There was an attempt to evaluate the 'Priorities of Government'.
There were some attitudes, grandstanding and personal prejudices displayed.
There was an ad hoc, competing group set up for political purposes.
There was more demand for staff time than was contemplated.
There was a small rebellion that demanded the BAC ask more of its own questions.
There was an eventual loss of enthusiasm experienced by BAC, staff and Council.
There was a final push to summarize findings.
There were the inevitable mixed feelings of achievement, disappointment, relief and encouragement.
Some Council members were relieved when the BAC ended.
Some wanted it to continue in some fashion.
Some had felt it wasn't necessary in the first place, if Council had just had the courage to do its job.
Some thanked the BAC members for their service.
Some may have thanked the BAC for acting as a human shields.
In the end, this was probably a worthwhile exercise that produced some good ideas -some of which were already being considered.
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Bellingham City Council
Monday, June 12, 2006
==================
ECONOMIC VITALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We were specifically requested to provide a recommendation regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds. We provide in the list of recommendations below guidelines for the allocation of economic development funds. We also provide additional recommendations that speak directly to City Council goals regarding the development of a more diverse and sustainable economy, continuing to support a high quality of life, and increasing the number of high paying jobs in Bellingham.
Recommendation #1: Regarding the allocation of current Economic Development funds, we note that $205,640 in grants was given to 7 community organizations in 2005. Reports from these organizations are highly variable and tend to focus on the activities undertaken with the grant money but not on the economic impact of the activities. Our committee found it was not possible to do an adequate review of the return on investment from the grants made and therefore we are unable to provide a specific recommendation on current allocations of Economic Development funds. However, one grant recipient, the Small Business Development Center, stood out positively in our review. To be able to better analyze the allocation of Economic Development funds in the future we recommend the City of Bellingham adopt process improvements such as the following:
1. All entities applying for grants should provide written statements of purpose and explanations for what they believe will be accomplished with the grant. Sample work products or deliverables should be encouraged.
2. Key criteria for evaluating proposals should include the expected impact of funded work on economic vitality within the City. Specifically, funds should be used for programs that enhance business retention, expansion, attraction, and redevelopment within the city boundaries. All qualified requests should have measurable outcomes that improve the City’s economy – such as increasing sales taxes, B&O taxes, etc.
3. Grant approvals should include the approvers’ signatures and rationale for approval (see recommendation below for Economic Advisory Group.)
4. All organizations receiving grants must provide year-end reports documenting what was accomplished with the grant.
Recommendation #2: Establish a plan and create a senior level planner position within the Executive Department in city government to guide the economic vitality of the city so that the city can fund the services that support the high quality of life we wish to sustain. This person’s responsibilities would include:
1. Proactively meeting with local businesses of all types to discuss their needs
2. Convene a regular business roundtable as a means of building better city-business relations.
3. Assist business in navigating government regulatory requirements
4. Assist new business in assessing opportunities in Bellingham and work with existing businesses to maximize the retention of those businesses within the city.
5. Be the conduit for communicating business perspectives to local government and be the coordination point for economic issues with the port, the county and state.
6. Evaluating other cities’ economic development plans to determine “best practices” and incorporating these practices into Bellingham’s plans.
7. Develop an economic strategic plan for the COB including an analysis of local business/economic trends
8. Provide an annual “state of the city economy” report to the Mayor and City Council
The individual in the position should have experience in the private sector; some formal training in economics or a related field would be considered a plus, but could be offset by experience. We also envision a selection process that would include members of the business community (see next item). The position should report directly to the mayor, thereby assuring proper access and communication to the executive and legislative departments of the city government.
The on-going funding for this position would come from the increased tax revenues realized by the efforts of the individual. Attracting just one high-paying job employer, or retaining a current employer considering leaving the city, would more than cover the cost of the position. For the first year or two we recommend funding all or part of the employment costs by using funds from the current Economic Development fund.
Recommendation #3: Form an Economic Advisory Group of local business representatives to provide input to City Council on matters related to economic vitality and to assist in the selection of the City’s Economic Development Liaison.
Recommendation #4: Commission a series of studies to determine what businesses were and are currently located within the city limits, with information on the number of jobs, wages, etc. in each sector. For example, the City might request the information for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. This information will form part of the analytical foundation upon which an economic development plan can be created.
Recommendation #5: Promote the creation of new, high wage jobs by offering a B&O tax credit (see Tacoma example). This direct incentive would be a tangible statement of the city’s resolve to foster high wage jobs across all components of private sector employers. While insufficient data is available at this time to assess the costs of the program, on judgment we believe it will be self-funding due to the incremental jobs it will create.
Recommendation #6: Charge the new Economic Development Liaison and the Economic Advisory group with creating a written economic development plan for the city of Bellingham. This is an imperative. The COB must take control of economic development and plan for it, not allow it to evolve haphazardly.
Recommendation #7: In addition to the already identified downtown/waterfront development priority, identify other business “clusters”, for example health care, marine services and organic/natural products industries where Bellingham might evolve into regional centers of excellence. Task forces for each cluster should be formed to facilitate economic development and high paying job creation for that cluster.
==================
“JAWS” RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: The City should consider raising property taxes each year by the allowable 1% (about $0.12 million a year). These additional funds should be banked in the GF reserves to protect against out year deficits and used to pre-fund LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B).
Recommendation #2: Any GF surpluses should be used to increase GF reserves and pre-fund the LEOFF-1 obligations (Appendix B). The City should establish a policy to assign surplus GF revenues (i.e., beyond that required to meet the 12% reserve requirement) to these pension funds.
Recommendation #3: The City should commit to fully fund its LEOFF-1 obligations by 2021. If future trends play out as expected, this implies continued annual contributions from the GF, growing from $1.3 million in 2006 to $2.1 million in 2011, $3.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2021.
Recommendation #4: Once the LEOFF-1 Fire Pension Fund is fully funded, the revenues collected from the 22.5¢ property tax and tax on fire-insurance premiums, currently allocated to the fire pension fund, should be reassigned. Initially, these revenues should be assigned to the other LEOFF-1 obligations. After 2021, these property tax revenues could become part of the City’s GF.
Recommendation #5: The City should continue, both on its own and through the Association of Washington Cities, to seek state assistance in paying these LEOFF-1 obligations. *We noted last year, in our review of the Fire Department, that a typical Bellingham firefighter enjoys an annual salary (exclusive of benefits) at least $14,000 more than highly skilled technical staff working in other departments. The City should both explain and justify this difference or work to reduce it.
Recommendation #6: The City should bargain aggressively with its unions to shift increasing amounts of benefit costs (primarily for health insurance premiums) from the City to employees.
Recommendation #7: The City should bargain aggressively with the firefighter union to, over time, bring firefighter compensation in line with that for employees in other unions/ departments.* This shift in compensation should recognize differences among groups of employees in, as examples, the requirements for prior education and training, provision of on-the-job training, on-the-job risks, and the number of qualified applicants seeking these jobs.
Recommendation #8: The City should explain the basis for growth in employee compensation below that of inflation and population growth. In particular, does City management plan for a decline in the amount and quality of services offered to City residents?
Recommendation #9: The City should explain why the budgets for the police and fire departments are expected to increase more rapidly than the overall GF. For example, are costs in these two departments expected to increase rapidly, or is the City planning to increase the level of service provided by these departments?
Recommendation #10: The City should use alternative qualitative and quantitative methods to estimate future GF revenues and expenses, including sensitivity and scenario analysis. In addition, the City should periodically review the accuracy of its past forecasts (backcasting).
Recommendation #11: The City should include in the annual budget document a discussion and explanation of expected trends in GF revenues, expenditures and reserves and how and why they differ from historical trends (Appendix A). *We do not discuss Charges for Goods and Services and Other Revenues because they are subject to definitional changes over time and because they are smaller revenue sources than the taxes.
==================
BUDGET POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: Adopt a policy on target levels of service – including mechanisms for determining whether funds are being spent efficiently to meet the desired service levels.
Recommendations related to policy #1:
a) Divide this policy into a guiding principle (noting the difference between principal and principle) and two separate policies
b) The discussion about providing a healthy balance of services to residents and quality of life should be moved up to the list of guiding principles (section in budget immediately above budget policies)
c) There should be a budget policy – or goal statement – to say that the city strives to have revenues sufficient to provide a particular service level.
o We recommend that the City conduct a study or have one prepared to determine appropriate benchmarks and target service levels for each department and key function. This work should be done as soon as possible. Without this information it is not possible to know if expenditures to maintain or improve service levels are money well spent; what cuts might be acceptable when cuts are needed; etc.
o We recommend that the study include a statement about the frequency with which the target service levels should be reviewed, by whom, and how.
d) There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. See recommendation 3 for detail.
Recommendation #2: Revise existing budget policy #3 to ensure it provides a pragmatic guide with regards to employee compensation.
Recommendations related to policy #3:
Delete the second sentence of the policy. Compensation levels for city workers should exceed compensation levels for workers in the private sector only if the city is unable to fill open positions with qualified workers.
Recommendation #3: Establish a new policy on banking excess revenues
There should be a policy describing what the city will do when net revenues increase or decrease. The City of Bellingham should bank excess revenues received in any given year to minimize the impact of rising health care costs and known pension (LEOFF-1) obligations.
Recommendation:
We recommend that excess revenues be banked to minimize the future impact of known pension obligations and, possibly, health care costs for current City workers. (We note the creation of pension funds by cities such as the City of Everett for this purpose.)
Recommendation #4: Establish a new policy on public involvement
The City of Bellingham should adopt a new policy to encourage more public involvement in the budget process. The BAC notes the absence of any policy regarding public involvement. We recommend the addition of the following new policy. Rather than a separate recommendation to the City of Bellingham, (COB), our committee suggests this be included with the recommendations from the “Policies” committee.
Recommendations for wording related to this new policy:
The City of Bellingham shall provide for systematic, transparent and ongoing citizen involvement and input, through regular surveys and other feedback mechanisms, of city residents to help determine funding priorities.
Regardless of the method, the process would be transparent, systematic and ongoing. Our committee recommends a community involvement process that is:
• Inclusive and representative of all neighborhoods with an opportunity for every resident to participate.
• An ongoing, systematic process that includes both an opportunity for citizen input and process for ongoing feedback and evaluation.
• A timeline of January to June in the year preceding the upcoming budget.
Recommendation #5: Provide a link to the city’s investment policy
RE: General Operating Policy #8
The City will use the ‘Prudent Person’ policy when investing funds. Preservation and safety of assets is a higher priority than return on investment. The City’s investment policy provides greater detail on this subject.
Recommendation #6: This policy is not a budget policy, but rather an operational guideline.
RE: General Operating Policy #9
“The City will use recycled paper whenever costs are less than or similar to costs for virgin paper stocks.”
Suggestion:
The City could develop scorecards for the various departments to encourage savings or efficiencies since it already has five year forecasts by department, division and program.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Mayor: A Living Wage Job In A Fishbowl
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
-- Winston Churchill
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H. L. Mencken
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans.
It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
But then, we elected them. -- Lily Tomlin
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. -- James Madison
"Popular adolescents look like leaders.
But in reality they are tracking peer opinion.
They do the same thing politicians do in tracking opinion polls.
They are very much like politicians."
-- Joseph P. Allen - Psychology Professor, University of Virginia
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.
-- Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------
Every Municipality requires some form of leadership.
Bellingham's Charter, adopted 35 years ago, specifies an elected Mayor to fulfill that function.
Mayor is a big job!
It entails holding much power and influence, but also much responsibility.
By definition, the job is relentlessly demanding.
It has the potential to be exhilarating, as successes are enjoyed by the community.
But, it can also be debilitating when things don't go so well.
There are diverse groups to be continuously dealt with fairly and reasonably satisfied.
There are a multiplicity of goals to be sought, even though some compete directly with others.
How to deal with and effectively resolve issues is not an exact science.
At best, a Mayor will seek to keep important things simmering, but not boiling over!
That requires a set of skills that many folks don't have, and even if they do, don't wish to go to the trouble of becoming Mayor.
It's not a job everyone wants, including me.
But, the purpose of this blog is to revisit some of our history since Mayor Mark resigned, effective November 1, 2006.
I did not always agree with Mark, but I did respect his talent, courage and vision for our City's future.
No fair-minded person can deny Mark possessed those qualities.
In addition, he had the ability to pick really good staff, many of whom still work for the City in responsible jobs.
I hope they stay around, regardless of who our new elected mayor will be.
But, Mark did reach his limit in the job of Mayor and has moved on, I hope happily.
I wish him well.
Below, I've reprinted his resignation announcement, followed by a few comments of my own.
--------------------------------
Message from the Mayor
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Dear fellow employees,
I have frequently written to you about a variety of subjects. Whether it be issues ‘in the news’, changes in policy, celebration of successes or a word of thanks, it has been my hope that you knew that I cared about your awareness of issues the city faces and to remind you that it is through your good work that we achieve our success.
Today I write to you with information that affects the city but is not about the city.
I will be resigning as Mayor of Bellingham effective Nov 1, 2006. On that date I will start in my new position as manager of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA), a regional organization that includes Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.
I have had a connection with NWCAA for many, many years. The mission of the agency is one I am passionate about and when the current manager announced his intention to retire, I thought long and carefully about whether to apply for the vacant position. The new job will involve a cut in pay, nonetheless I eagerly look forward to this different chapter in life.
This is my 20th year as a local elected official. While a career in public service has been of great satisfaction and joy, it had never been my intention to spend my entire adulthood in elective office. I am pleased that I will continue in service to the citizens of our community, just in a different capacity.
The primary reason that I am able to take this step is because of the extraordinary talent and commitment to service of the City of Bellingham department heads, managers and employees. Ours is not a perfect organization, but I believe that it is in an extraordinarily strong position at this time. Together, over these last nearly eleven years, we have accomplished so very much. I am proud of my affiliation with the City of Bellingham and with you. I know you will continue to do great things.
In my years as Mayor, I have made many wonderful friends among you, my fellow employees. I look forward to maintaining these friendships, with the added benefit that I will not always be ‘talking shop’ when they are trying to relax!
In closing, let me thank you all for the energy, commitment and spirit you bring to your work. I will be forever grateful for the honor of having been your fellow public servant.
Sincerely,
Mayor Mark
PS. The vacancy created by my departure will be filled by a majority vote of the City Council. The Council can fill the vacancy from among council members or any Bellingham citizen that meets the eligibility requirements of the city charter. The voters will select the mayor at the general election in November 2007.
-------------------------
I believe Mark's reason for resigning was a good one, the prospect of a responsible job that wasn't a pressure cooker.
Unspoken, were other probable reasons:
• His health
• A reduced level of enjoyment, due to an atmosphere of growing distrust and controversy
• His family
• His accurate reading of political 'tea leaves', particualy after the contentious 2003 election
[Note, here I suspect Mark came to know that he would be challenged by one of his former strong supporters, now a candidate for Mayor]
-----------------
But, Mark's announcement still came as quite a shock to most folks, even though it was openly welcomed by some.
It also came at a time I was away, hiking in the Canadian Rockies.
That vacation was particularly enjoyable because it occured right after I had made a similar decision.
I had decided to resign myself at the end of 2006, but announce it early so that the Council would have time to appoint a replacement for 1 year.
Mark beat me to it!
Boy, I was mad at the time!
Mark's resigning made me reconsider my own plans.
Under those circumstances, I thought it would have been irresponsible for me to walk away from the challenges that were facing the City at that time.
Of course, some may not have liked me quitting before my elected term was over, either.
Others may have felt differently.
Anyway, sense prevailed and I stayed.
And now, I'm glad I did decide to finish my term.
---------------
Another time, I might extend this reflection.
But this is enough for now.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
-- Winston Churchill
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H. L. Mencken
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans.
It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
But then, we elected them. -- Lily Tomlin
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. -- James Madison
"Popular adolescents look like leaders.
But in reality they are tracking peer opinion.
They do the same thing politicians do in tracking opinion polls.
They are very much like politicians."
-- Joseph P. Allen - Psychology Professor, University of Virginia
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.
-- Winston Churchill
---------------------------------------------------------
Every Municipality requires some form of leadership.
Bellingham's Charter, adopted 35 years ago, specifies an elected Mayor to fulfill that function.
Mayor is a big job!
It entails holding much power and influence, but also much responsibility.
By definition, the job is relentlessly demanding.
It has the potential to be exhilarating, as successes are enjoyed by the community.
But, it can also be debilitating when things don't go so well.
There are diverse groups to be continuously dealt with fairly and reasonably satisfied.
There are a multiplicity of goals to be sought, even though some compete directly with others.
How to deal with and effectively resolve issues is not an exact science.
At best, a Mayor will seek to keep important things simmering, but not boiling over!
That requires a set of skills that many folks don't have, and even if they do, don't wish to go to the trouble of becoming Mayor.
It's not a job everyone wants, including me.
But, the purpose of this blog is to revisit some of our history since Mayor Mark resigned, effective November 1, 2006.
I did not always agree with Mark, but I did respect his talent, courage and vision for our City's future.
No fair-minded person can deny Mark possessed those qualities.
In addition, he had the ability to pick really good staff, many of whom still work for the City in responsible jobs.
I hope they stay around, regardless of who our new elected mayor will be.
But, Mark did reach his limit in the job of Mayor and has moved on, I hope happily.
I wish him well.
Below, I've reprinted his resignation announcement, followed by a few comments of my own.
--------------------------------
Message from the Mayor
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Dear fellow employees,
I have frequently written to you about a variety of subjects. Whether it be issues ‘in the news’, changes in policy, celebration of successes or a word of thanks, it has been my hope that you knew that I cared about your awareness of issues the city faces and to remind you that it is through your good work that we achieve our success.
Today I write to you with information that affects the city but is not about the city.
I will be resigning as Mayor of Bellingham effective Nov 1, 2006. On that date I will start in my new position as manager of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA), a regional organization that includes Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.
I have had a connection with NWCAA for many, many years. The mission of the agency is one I am passionate about and when the current manager announced his intention to retire, I thought long and carefully about whether to apply for the vacant position. The new job will involve a cut in pay, nonetheless I eagerly look forward to this different chapter in life.
This is my 20th year as a local elected official. While a career in public service has been of great satisfaction and joy, it had never been my intention to spend my entire adulthood in elective office. I am pleased that I will continue in service to the citizens of our community, just in a different capacity.
The primary reason that I am able to take this step is because of the extraordinary talent and commitment to service of the City of Bellingham department heads, managers and employees. Ours is not a perfect organization, but I believe that it is in an extraordinarily strong position at this time. Together, over these last nearly eleven years, we have accomplished so very much. I am proud of my affiliation with the City of Bellingham and with you. I know you will continue to do great things.
In my years as Mayor, I have made many wonderful friends among you, my fellow employees. I look forward to maintaining these friendships, with the added benefit that I will not always be ‘talking shop’ when they are trying to relax!
In closing, let me thank you all for the energy, commitment and spirit you bring to your work. I will be forever grateful for the honor of having been your fellow public servant.
Sincerely,
Mayor Mark
PS. The vacancy created by my departure will be filled by a majority vote of the City Council. The Council can fill the vacancy from among council members or any Bellingham citizen that meets the eligibility requirements of the city charter. The voters will select the mayor at the general election in November 2007.
-------------------------
I believe Mark's reason for resigning was a good one, the prospect of a responsible job that wasn't a pressure cooker.
Unspoken, were other probable reasons:
• His health
• A reduced level of enjoyment, due to an atmosphere of growing distrust and controversy
• His family
• His accurate reading of political 'tea leaves', particualy after the contentious 2003 election
[Note, here I suspect Mark came to know that he would be challenged by one of his former strong supporters, now a candidate for Mayor]
-----------------
But, Mark's announcement still came as quite a shock to most folks, even though it was openly welcomed by some.
It also came at a time I was away, hiking in the Canadian Rockies.
That vacation was particularly enjoyable because it occured right after I had made a similar decision.
I had decided to resign myself at the end of 2006, but announce it early so that the Council would have time to appoint a replacement for 1 year.
Mark beat me to it!
Boy, I was mad at the time!
Mark's resigning made me reconsider my own plans.
Under those circumstances, I thought it would have been irresponsible for me to walk away from the challenges that were facing the City at that time.
Of course, some may not have liked me quitting before my elected term was over, either.
Others may have felt differently.
Anyway, sense prevailed and I stayed.
And now, I'm glad I did decide to finish my term.
---------------
Another time, I might extend this reflection.
But this is enough for now.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Thoughts: All Politics Really Are Local!
'Think globally, act locally'
"Each generation needs to make its own decisions and its own discoveries - which means that one of this generation's responsibilities is to see that the next generation will still have something left to discover."
- Tony Hiss The Experience of Place
----------------------
Less than three months from my departure from the Bellingham City Council, I find myself anticipating the freedom in emancipating myself from the self-imposed rigors of my partially self-imposed schedule.
That feeling is exhilarating!
Au Revoir, Hasta Luego and see you later my friends!
I mean that in all sincerity, but with a modicum of tongue-in-cheek loquacity.
What shall I find to write about, now that my tenure is about to be over?
Not to worry, there is a seemingly endless store of issues and opinions from which to draw.
Some of these topics seem inexhaustible, because they are timeless in nature,
Topics like growth management, lake whatcom preservation, waterfront redevelopment, fiscal responsibility, open government, neighborhood involvement, economic development, library enhancement, greenways, public safety, and citizen involvement are never ending!
And, of course, holding local elected officials -and wannabe's- accountable for their actual performance!
That is as it should be.
Because each generation requires a renewal and a reawakening to regenerate a democracy, particularly at the local level.
The City level is almost as local as one can get, at least when it comes to elected officials which represent a municipality.
The City and County level is where democracy starts.
Those are the levels where people know what's important, and who will represent their interests.
Higher levels, like District, State and Federal are separated more widely than the local level.
But, if you don't get it right at the local level, the problems just get worse as you go up the chain.
But, what is right at the local level you might ask?
Go back to the topics mentioned above, then add to them the considerations of health, welfare and safety at a higher level.
Add to that the importance of feedback from the populace, and leaven that with the promise of responsiveness, and openness, regardless of popularity at the ballot.
Americans need more from their representatives than their dedication to their own re-election!
Democracy begins at home, but it doesn't end there!
Renewal is a constant that should not be ignored!
There is no mention in our constitution of political parties.
That is a construct that has occurred afterwards.
Do not let the will of parties subvert the will of the people.
Votes should be based upon the person and their qualifications for office.
Do not be persuaded by proxy!
Or by propaganda.
Ask questions yourself, and by guided by answers that are represented to be true.
These answers are important in a democracy!
Make sure you ask the right ones, and satisfy yourself that the answers ring true.
We can't ask for more than that.
--------------------------
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." -- JFK
"Each generation needs to make its own decisions and its own discoveries - which means that one of this generation's responsibilities is to see that the next generation will still have something left to discover."
- Tony Hiss The Experience of Place
----------------------
Less than three months from my departure from the Bellingham City Council, I find myself anticipating the freedom in emancipating myself from the self-imposed rigors of my partially self-imposed schedule.
That feeling is exhilarating!
Au Revoir, Hasta Luego and see you later my friends!
I mean that in all sincerity, but with a modicum of tongue-in-cheek loquacity.
What shall I find to write about, now that my tenure is about to be over?
Not to worry, there is a seemingly endless store of issues and opinions from which to draw.
Some of these topics seem inexhaustible, because they are timeless in nature,
Topics like growth management, lake whatcom preservation, waterfront redevelopment, fiscal responsibility, open government, neighborhood involvement, economic development, library enhancement, greenways, public safety, and citizen involvement are never ending!
And, of course, holding local elected officials -and wannabe's- accountable for their actual performance!
That is as it should be.
Because each generation requires a renewal and a reawakening to regenerate a democracy, particularly at the local level.
The City level is almost as local as one can get, at least when it comes to elected officials which represent a municipality.
The City and County level is where democracy starts.
Those are the levels where people know what's important, and who will represent their interests.
Higher levels, like District, State and Federal are separated more widely than the local level.
But, if you don't get it right at the local level, the problems just get worse as you go up the chain.
But, what is right at the local level you might ask?
Go back to the topics mentioned above, then add to them the considerations of health, welfare and safety at a higher level.
Add to that the importance of feedback from the populace, and leaven that with the promise of responsiveness, and openness, regardless of popularity at the ballot.
Americans need more from their representatives than their dedication to their own re-election!
Democracy begins at home, but it doesn't end there!
Renewal is a constant that should not be ignored!
There is no mention in our constitution of political parties.
That is a construct that has occurred afterwards.
Do not let the will of parties subvert the will of the people.
Votes should be based upon the person and their qualifications for office.
Do not be persuaded by proxy!
Or by propaganda.
Ask questions yourself, and by guided by answers that are represented to be true.
These answers are important in a democracy!
Make sure you ask the right ones, and satisfy yourself that the answers ring true.
We can't ask for more than that.
--------------------------
"My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on." -- JFK
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Mitch's Kool-Aid: Special FISHY Flavor for Election Time
For those who didn't see it in the October 4, 2007 issue of the Whatcom Independent, I am reprinting Mitch Friedman's latest opinion piece on page 9.
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
While this is certainly not Mitch's best effort, it does seems to reflect much of the negative tone of attacks we've seen evidenced from him lately, especially in the Mayoral race.
But, more troubling is the attitude that this is the plan he wants done, and any expressions of concern or doubt are totally unwelcome!
Some kings or emperors have gotten away with that, but in America?
OK, maybe too broad an example.
Anyway, I've annotated and inserted in CAPITALS a few comments to serve as quick replies to parts of this particular rant.
Come on, Mitch, we're all in this effort together!
Aren't we?
---------------------------
There is something in the water [KOOL-AID?]
The surreal [SUPPRESSED?] public debate over the proposed reconveyance of county forestland in the Lake Whatcom watershed raises questions either about the mental health of our citizenry [THAT DOESN'T SOUND NICE!] or about the honesty and quality of politics in our mayoral race [THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, WHICH ONE DOES HE MEAN?].
Either could be an indication of something amiss in our drinking water: an insidious neurotoxin or perhaps something worse [LIKE ANGER AND DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION?].
First let’s cover the basics:
Reconveyance is a home run for the watershed. [BUT AREN"T MORE GAMES WON BY SINGLES, WALKS OR SACRIFICES?]
The opportunity to move 8,400-forested acres from state timber management into county park management is a huge gain for both water quality and public safety [MAYBE IT COULD BE], not to mention public recreation [NO SURPRISE THERE].
This will greatly reduce the threat of logging-caused landslides which have in past harmed both the lake and property and could do worse in the future.
Natural forest is the best water filtration system, explaining why cities from New York to Portland manage their watersheds in this way.
The steep, unstable slopes of Lookout and Stewart mountains make the matter of greater urgency in our watershed [STIPULATED GOOD IDEA, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW THIS WILL BE DONE AND MANAGED].
It’s true that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages timber around Lake Whatcom under the most restrictive plan in the state, [BUT IT IS STILL NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH] thanks to years of hard work by people like Linda Marrom, Jamie Berg, Alan Soicher (a past member of the state Forest Practices Board), Lisa McShane (of Conservation Northwest), Tim Paxton, and Dave Wallin (a prominent forest scientist). [ALL GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH LONGER LIST OF NAMES!]
It’s also true that all of these people felt the plan was a compromise and that exclusion of logging on these lands would be preferred.
Furthermore, the state management plan is under litigation by Skagit County and cannot be taken for granted.
All of these people, along with others like April Markowitz chair of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, are thrilled with the prospect of reconveyance [APRIL IS A VALUED AND KEY MEMBER OF THIS CITY ADVISORY BOARD].
Concerns raised over reconveyance are mostly bogus [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
Of course we need more information and public discussion before finalizing a reconveyance, and we’ll have many months of that ahead [AFTER THE HOPED FOR ELECTION BOUNCE FROM THE ANNOUNCEMENT].
But most of the questions being raised are obvious red herrings [WHO APPOINTED YOU TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?].
If somebody asks you whether a county park would encourage more [HOW MANY MORE, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?] people and pets to come into the watershed, simply remind them that hikers cause far fewer landslides or other harm than would the 43 miles of road (and consequent clear-cuts) that DNR would soon start putting in even if the current management plan survives the Skagit lawsuit.
(About 60 percent of the roads and cuts would be on these 8,400 acres.)
[HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS AND NEW TRAILS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PARK?]
[WON"T THESE REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, DRAINAGE AND ENFORCEMENT?]
Those voicing these concerns have something suspicious [IS THERE ANY REASON?] in common.
What do Tom Pratum, John Servais and Marian Beddill all have in common? [PROBABLY MULTIPLE THINGS, INCLUDING BEING LONG-TIME CONCERNED LAKE WATCHERS]
They have all vocally declared support for Dan Pike’s mayoral campaign [THAT'S ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHERS] and they are all voicing these so-called questions [NOT SO-CALLED, THEY ARE QUESTIONS, AND LEGITIMATE ONES AT THAT!] about the reconveyance, presumably [THAT'S WHY THIS CALLED AN OPINION PIECE] in an effort to undermine much-deserved public credit to Dan McShane for this great breakthrough [EVEN DAN ADMITS IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA, AND SAID SO TONIGHT].
John Watts, who also supports Pike, was critical of reconveyance [ESPECIALLY THE SECRECY AND TIMING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT] until he studied the matter and showed the dignity of changing his position [THE IDEA STILL REQUIRES CRITICAL ANALYSIS, WITH MANY MORE FACTS. THAT HASN'T CHANGED].
There was a time when we environmentalists [WHO IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'WE', BESIDES YOU?] tried to broaden our political tent in order to achieve environmental gains.
Of what possible benefit could it be now to do the opposite, and actually try to undermine a huge environmental gain in order to narrow the political tent? [THIS STATEMENT DEFIES LOGIC, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC PROCESS AND PROOF]
There’s something in the water.[KOOL-AID?]
Here’s how we get to the heart of the matter: we ask Dan Pike [GOOD IDEA! WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE KNOWS ABOUT PITCHING A BROAD TENT].
When I used to fish in lakes of the Midwest, I would encounter two kinds of pike.
Walleyed pike swim in the clear, cool depths and are a delight to catch.
Northern pike are bony, teethy, and mean, lurking in the reeds.
I’d like to believe Dan Pike is of the former sort [NICE. ARE YOU CALLING HIM A FISH?].
He’s being awfully quiet about reconveyance [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN, THEN GIVE HIM TIME TO CONSIDER IT? AFTER ALL, AS THE NEXT MAYOR, HE COULD REALLY HELP! BUT, MAYBE HE'S JUST A FISH].
Pike’s had plenty of time to study the issue, talk to experts, and so forth [CERTAINLY NOT THE EIGHT YEARS THIS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN IN THE MAKING!].
He even says he stands for improving Lake Whatcom.
So if he supports reconveyance he should come out and say so, maybe even congratulate those who deserve credit [WHY NOT CUT HIM IN ON THE PLAN? HE'S A BRIGHT, FAIR-MINDED PERSON, BUT PROBABLY LIKES TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, BASED ON FACTS, NOT SUPPOSITION. UNLESS, YOU THINK HE'S A FISH].
That should show he places policy above politics [CERTAINLY YOU MEAN GOOD POLICY ABOVE CHEAP POLITICS] and has character worthy of being mayor.
If Pike doesn’t follow that path, we can assume [REMEMBER HOW THAT PARTICULAR WORD CAN BE BROKEN DOWN?] that the foray of attack dogs from his camp has his blessing [HERE YOU SEEM TO BE ADMITTING YOUR OWN FISHY GAME PLAN!].
If he opposes reconveyance, I want to hear his reasons, and they had better be better than the vitriolic drivel we’ve heard so far [IS THIS THE KIND OF DIALOGUE AND THREAT LIKELY TO ACHIEVE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOME?].
---------------
Mitch Friedman is a conservation biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest, which has worked since 1999 to protect state lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Whatcom Independent •
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
WLV Forum: Ad Libs, Glibs & Fibs
The format and questions at tonight's forum was good.
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
But, understandably due to time limits, some lack of factual knowledge, some lack of candor, some of the answers provided by some of candidates were -being kind- unenlightening.
Without any pretense at completeness, here were some brief observations, given without specific attribution to any person:
----------------------------
Mayor's race:
Ad Lib: 're-prioritizing' the city budget was mentioned without any specifics.
Does the candidate understand that the City's 2008 budget will be adopted on 11/26, the day before a new mayor takes office?
Glib: current administrative experience: 2 direct reports and 30 'cats to herd'. [meaning diverse elected officials]
Fib: opponent's 'inexperience' caused misunderstanding of surprise announcement.
---------------------------
Ward 1 Council race: No competition, therefore no opportunity for fun!
--------------------------
Ward 3 Council race:
Ad Lib: a proposal to eliminate B&O tax.
Let's see that's only $12.250 million projected for 2007!
Glib: City capital facilities priority should be stormwater facilities to protect Lake Whatcom. [2% of watershed in City]
City already has stormwater funding, but technology won't remove phosphorus.
Preservation of natural vegetation works much better!
Fib: Lake Whatcom is not in top 3 priorities, because that topic is 'already being addressed'.
-----------------------------
Ward 4 Council race:
Ad Lib: Do no more harm, buy out WD 10 and raise $100 million
Glib: Just streamline permitting [times 2]
Fib: Simple Lake Whatcom rating system of 12 to 15 actions versus cleaning efficiency, then just pick those we want, like a loaf of bread!
---------------------------
Ward 5 Council race:
Ad Lib: Development already pays it's infrastruture costs, except Cordata
Partially accurate, but Cordata situation was mandated by agreement with County!
Glib: Single Family residential zoning; Planning Director is compelled to address
Only after sufficient evidence is gathered, which is the problem!
Fib: Denied not answering questionnaires!
Pretty easy to check, don't you think?
--------------------------
At Large Council race:
Ad Lib: Energized by the campaign!
Glib: Rattled off long list of endorsements
Fib: Voted for better Lake Whatcom program
--------------------------
That's it folks, just enough to count as a blog
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Water District Fiefdom or Community Treasure?
Regulations for the Public Good
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction.
Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
"So careful is the law [in England] against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvement in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, etc., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, etc., lest this should lead to a deterioration.
Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1792.
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. It is to be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime.
The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land."
- Luna Leopold
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform."
-- Susan B. Anthony
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction.
Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) - 26th President of the United States
------------------------------------
On August 15, 2000, Blair Ford, President of Water District 10 Commissioners sent the letter below to the Bellingham City Council, with copies to various others.
The reason for this communication was the impending passage of the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance, which raised its funding from a water rate surcharge.
Designed to raise about $2 million per year, the surcharge was a substantial $5 per month for residential users, and scaled to other users.
Water Districts, as bulk users outside the City Limits, were already being charged an additional 50% for the privilege of using potable water from the City's treatment plant.
This is allowed and provided for by State Law as a means of compensating the City, as water purveyor. for its costs of building and operating its water treatment utility.
The 150% is actually a pretty reasonable rate.
At least one city charges 400%.
The City of Bellingham has an Interlocal Agreement with Water District 10 which outlines the terms under which water will be supplied.
But this Interlocal also covers sewage, and the City's commitment to take it for treatment at its Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are limits on the amounts mentioned in this Interlocal Agreement, which some believe are excessive.
The argument goes this way:
Why should the City enable sprawl in its Municipal Water Supply Watershed, by supplying the Water District with water and sewer services?
While considerable development already exists, it makes sense to continue to supply these services to that.
But, what about new development?
How much is enough?
I believe it is time to revisit our Interlocal Agreement with the Water District and come to grips with our present reality, not something that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
Water Districts are 'Special Purpose Districts' under State Law, and have duties and responsibilities that are defined.
They are governed by an elected Board of Commissioners, who hire a Manager to oversee operations.
Whatcom County Water District 10 has now changed its name to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, which probably fits better.
That is because its boundaries are the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed.
Or, at least that was the way we understood the boundaries.
Now, this Water District seems to want to extend its services outside its boundaries!
Why, you might ask?
Well, because it thinks it can, that's why.
Also, that has been the traditional method by which this Water District pays its costs - by expanding its customer base.
What is wrong with that picture?
Maybe the RESERVOIR Watershed is not an appropriate place for unrestricted expansion?
Bingo!
That is the crux of our current dilemma.
The Water District wants to continue expanding its service indefinitely, regardless of what Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham are trying to do to protect our RESERVOIR.
Notice, I keep using the 'R' word, because the Water District remains in denial that it is a RESERVOIR!
Back to WD 10 modus operandi.
The District has a much more complicated distribution system than does the City.
Its maintenance problems are severe, and it shows.
For example, it operates [at last count] about 27 pumping stations, to the City's 4.
It's terrain is hilly and its service expansions tend to induce and feed daisy-chain sprawl, not limit it.
It has suffered periodic sewage overflows directly into Lake Whatcom
Its remedy was to seek State funding for a larger detention tank, and also a larger sewer line!
What was wrong with that picture?
A larger sewer line to feed more sprawl, so that eventually another bigger spill is sure to occur!
In short, the LWW&S District is a poster child for a high-cost, high-maintenance operation in an inappropriate palce, that is constantly seeking to expand to offset its costs by increased volume!
That appears to be more acceptable than just charging its customers the actual costs of its operations!
Since when was Lake Whatcom supposed to be an inexpensive place to live?
Who ought to decide such things?
Now, we have this renegade Water District seeking special dispensation from Whatcom County to extend its tenacles into an new area of proposed development.
An area outside of any recognized UGA.
An area being sought by speculators for 'cluster' development.
'Cluster' development for mega-homes?
I don't get it.
And I hope the County doesn't either!
If we are serious about protecting our drinking water RESERVOIR, we'd better get serious about better control of the LWW&S District.
They continue to work at cross purposes to the good efforts being exerted by both County and City.
That practice needs to end, and soon!
Read for yourself how arrogant this WD was, and continues to be:
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Section 15.08.250D Relating to Water Use Rates
Dear City Council Members:
Water District 10’s Board of Commissioners recently learned (through an August 1, 2000 Bellingham Herald article) about your proposed ordinance to increase City water rates to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. We reviewed and discussed this ordinance at our Regular Public Meeting on August 9, 2000. The following concerns are the results of our deliberations.
1. We believe the proposed unilateral action violates our contractual agreement as outlined in the Lake Whatcom Interlocal Agreement, and subsequent joint resolutions regarding inter-jurisdictional action within the scope of programs and plans. Resolutions regarding Lake Whatcom management necessitate regular communication, collaboration, coordination, and cooperation at all levels between the City, the County, and the District. The effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., the “success”) of the various Lake Whatcom management programs depends totally on our collective adherence to these four “C” principles. Albeit probably unintentional, your proposed ordinance violates the spirit and letter of the Lake Whatcom management interlocal agreements and resolutions. It also represents a total disregard of the aforementioned guiding principles. We are justifiably surprised, dismayed, and disheartened by your action. We suggest that you defer action on the ordinance for now and engage the County and Water District 10 in accordance with our Agreements.
2. Your “discretionary” rate increase will be our “obligatory” rate increase. Unless you specifically exempt us, any water rate increase that you impose will increase the District’s operating costs, since the District purchases water from the City under contract for redistribution within our own Geneva and North Shore (primarily Eagleridge) service areas. Your rate increases, depending on their size and our ability to absorb them, can, and usually do, precipitate consequential rate increases throughout the District. As water purveyors ourselves, we fully recognize and appreciate that operating costs routinely increase, and that we both need to unilaterally adjust rates accordingly to create revenues that will cover these costs. The types of rate increases you are considering do not qualify as non-discretionary, since they are within your abilities to control and/or contain them. The rate increase you propose now is purely discretionary. You do not “need” to do this. The legitimacy of imposing non-operating costs upon ratepayers outside areas of your legal jurisdiction is highly questionable. It smacks of “taxation without representation.” As such, we protest the proposed action.
3. District ratepayers are already paying a disproportionate share of City water treatment and distribution costs. Merely because the District’s service area lies outside the City limits, the City imposes, as allowed by state law, a 50% surcharge on all water sold to the District. Arguably then, we are already paying more for water treatment and distribution operating costs than is otherwise defensible based on the actual cost of service, particularly since the City does not maintain nor repair any of the District’s distribution system. We are therefore concerned that your “…proportionate amount for metered water users…” could/would include a 50% surcharge similar to that now imposed. Notwithstanding any other considerations, we object to any surcharge as patently unfair to not only District ratepayers, but to all external City water consumers.
4. District ratepayers are already paying a very significant share of Lake Whatcom watershed protection costs. District rate payers already have shouldered, are now shouldering, and will continue to shoulder, a disproportionate Lake Whatcom Watershed protection cost burden through (1) a Consent Decree settling a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the District, which involved payment of $220,000 to the Whatcom Land Trust for “…purchase and permanent protection of environmentally sensitive, undeveloped land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, as described in Appendix A to this Decree…”, (2) the repayment of the ~$500,000 Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Tank loan over the next 4 years, a burden carried by all District sewer ratepayers, and (3) the planned repayment through increased sewer rates of Lake Louise Road Sewer Interceptor pipe over-sizing (to contain inflow and infiltration generated by the Sudden Valley and Geneva sewage collection systems) costs. The proposed rate increase would inequitably increase the watershed protection cost burden of District ratepayers.
5. Given that the exclusive purpose of the proposed ordinance is to acquire land in the Lake Whatcom watershed, we do not believe that a water rate increase is an appropriate funding method. The proposed rate increase is in fact a special purpose “excise tax” to be levied against a select population within and outside the City to finance a course of action to be defined by the City alone. If such a tax is warranted, the County, not the City, would be the proper authority to impose such a tax.
6. Under the proposal, some watershed protection “beneficiaries” will not pay fairly, or not at all. Assuming for the moment, that all land acquisition actions under the proposed ordinance if passed, would produce tangible, measurable water quality protection benefits to all Lake water use categories. (e.g., drinking, irrigation, recreation, pisciculture, aesthetics) Then many of these “beneficiaries” would escape paying for it since they receive no City water bill (e.g., watershed residents drawing water directly from the Lake or wells, “out-of-towners” swimming at Bloedel Donovan Park). In this respect, the City should have pursued the action outlined in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance.
7. A specific property acquisition plan has not been discussed, nor have specific land acquisition policies, procedures, or associated details as to location within and/or outside of the City limits, how to acquire, and when to acquire. This is the first step. It should be integrated with other watershed protection options that might prove more feasible and or cost effective.*
8. The proposed ordinance would collect funds before the actual need is identified and the project scope is developed. Cueing from the above, government is typically cast in dim light when it collects funds before a need is verified and quantities are known. The funding needs should follow from the action plan. Accordingly, you should first figure what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how much it will cost.* Once you have this information catalogued, you can then determine how to collect the funds.
9. To the best of our knowledge, the City has not performed a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed program.* This should be an essential ingredient to your decision making. Without it, you are merely doing something that just “sounds” good or “feels” right.
10. *The Comprehensive Lake Whatcom Storm Water Plan, currently under development, should eventually answer all these questions and provide this information in context with other viable water quality protection alternatives. For this critical reason, we again recommend deferring all major watershed protection initiatives pending receipt of a Plan that presents the optimum watershed protection action package.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Turn! Turn! Turn!: (To Everything There Is a Season)
Today, October 1, was delightful.
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
A Monday, the beginning of a new week.
My wife and I had the trail all to ourselves and great, cool weather too.
We did what we did together the day we met.
We hiked.
About four hours worth, just enough to breathe deeply, stretch muscles and feel just tired enough to justify a good dinner at the Duck Brand Cantina & Hotel in Winthrop.
The' Duck' is a favorite place for a lot of people, for a lot of years.
Back to the hike.
Scenery was spectacular!
Mountains, some snow dusted and a few snow capped.
Trees, mostly conifers that were green, but a few golden larches were seen at a distance.
The deciduous trees were turning into the usual Fall colors, reds, yellows and many shades in between.
The sky was mostly blue, with passing cumulus clouds, and the leading edge of what seemed to be a major front struggling to climb the peaks on the horizon to the west.
A few birds and critters too.
But mostly silence, except for whispers of the wind in the foliage.
Just perfect!
For the most part we didn't talk much.
It was mainly a time for reflection.
Thinking back on all the miles we have come, both figuratively and literally.
And the adventures we've had!
What a varied bunch of experiences.
I took special note of the day, October 1.
That means that just over 75% of the year -2007- is already gone.
And, three months from this day, I will have completed my last term in public office.
Now, that was something that was never planned!
The opportunity presented itself, and I was ready for it and fortunate to have been selected.
I'm glad about serving these [almost] nine years, too.
It has been a real learning experience for me, as well as a chance to give back something to the community.
Our community is special, as all communities are in ways to people who live in them.
Community life is a microcosm of America, a part of the fabric of our nation.
One doesn't have to go to Washington, DC to contribute to this country.
Everything that matters is already right here, under our noses!
The turning of the seasons reminded me of that famous song of not so long ago.
My own seasons are turning, too.
At my age, I figure I've now pretty much completed Fall and am entering the Winter of my life.
Even with relatively good health and avoiding accidents, I may have only about 22 or 23 years left at most.
I want whatever years I have before me to continue being good ones.
Ones that are mainly pain-free, and that do not burden others, or financial resources un-necessarily.
I suspect most folks wish things like that, too.
I figure that with a little practice I can get better at being older.
Calm down, don't rush or fret as much.
Lower the blood pressure and the blood sugar.
Take care of my eyes, ears and teeth.
Eat healthier and keep my weight down.
Exercise more regularly, and stay active in things that count.
I know a few people who would say it's about time I grew up!
Been fighting that a long time.
Now's the time.
Kinda like Winston Churchill's famous line about the turning point in WW-II; he didn't know whether it was the beginning of the end, but thought it might be the end of the beginning.
I'm pretty sure that's the right way to think about such things!
-----------------------
From Wikipedia:
"Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)", often abbreviated to "Turn! Turn! Turn!", is a song written and composed by Pete Seeger in the 1950s.
Seeger waited until 1962 to record it, releasing the song on his album The Bitter and The Sweet on Columbia Records.
The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8).
The Biblical text posits there being a time and place for all things: laughter and sorrow, healing and killing, war and peace, and so on.
The lines are open to myriad interpretations, but as a song they are commonly performed as a plea for world peace, with stress on the closing line: "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late," the latter phrase being the only part of the lyric written by Seeger himself.
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time of war, a time of peace
A time of love, a time of hate
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing
To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time of peace, I swear it's not too late!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business
'We'll know the price of water when the well runs dry' - Ben Franklin
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Waterfront Redevelopment: Economic Development on Steroids
'It's never over, until its over.' - Casey Stengel
---------------------------------------
Back in September of 2006, I decided to e-mail County Council member Ward Nelson, hoping to build a dialogue with him to help lead to the County's support of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] State legislation that had just been sponsored by Representative Kelli Linville, and passed to include Bellingham as one of its initial Pilot Projects.
This new bill to include Bellingham in what amounts to 'tax-increment financing' was seen as a real boon, happening just at the time when financing help - at least the enabling of it - was most needed, as the Port and City proceeded in a good faith effort to redevelop our degraded industrial waterfront.
--------------------
Please give me a call at my home phone xxx before noon tomorrow, or over the weekend at xxx, if convenient.
Otherwise, I'll be back next Monday, Sep 25, for our next City Council meeting.
I asked Ward to call me to discuss LIFT and how the might agree to use that tool to support the ambitious waterfront redevelopment effort being undertaken to stimulate economic development, clean up a polluted industrial area and provide better public access to Bellingham Bay.
I had been very encouraged by reading the Economics section of the County's Comprehensive Plan [at the URL shown below] because the Waterfront Redevelopment seemed to be tailor-made to qualify for substantial Economic Development Incentives [EDI]. Because of the enormous potential for assisting the entire region, I also thought there was a good chance the County would agree to use its LIFT potential, just as the City and the Port of Bellingham had quickly decided to do.
Unfortunately, it turned out I was wrong in this assumption.
And, I was also wrong about the County making available any EDI funds either.
Neither has happened -at least up to now- despite the fact that the Waterfront Redevelopment project clearly qualifies for strong financial assistance by the County's own Comp Plan!
But at the time, I wanted to ask, at least to get an explanation.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/2005/2005%20January%20Comp%20Plan%20-%20.pdf%20with%20.jpg%20maps/k%20Chapter%207%20-%20Economics/Chapter%207-Economics.pdf
----------------------------
The County seems so far ahead of the City in defining its role in economic development, if for no other reason than it has its own written and approved Comp Plan Element specific to Economic Development.
It has been my goal for a few years to have the City develop such an ED Element, which would ideally fit into and support the County's overall vision.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient City Council support for this idea to make this happen, and draft Strategic Guidelines are now being developed.
But, the waterfront redevelopment effort can't wait for that to happen.
If you read the County's Comp Plan, Chapter 7 on Economics, plus the supporting information in Appendix 'C' regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan, these ideas and goals strongly support a major redevelopment just like the waterfront project, which the Port of Bellingham and the City have committed to make happen.
It certainly sounded that way enough to allow the County to support the Market Depot Square project with over $200 k inEDI funding last year.
That was a big help, and the success of that venture has paid off from the moment the facility was opened!
In similar fashion the County's commitment to the Public Facilities District over 5 years ago has greatly assisted that effort,
Unlike the PFD rebates of a portion of sales taxes already paid, a LIFT commitment doesn't identify existing County funds, because that money is never available UNLESS the actually development occurs.
The tax increment in question is associated only with new development within the geographic boundary defined as part of Waterfront Redevelopment
No development, no new taxes.
It's that simple.
Maybe it was a problem to get support for the new, innovative LIFT funding promises because the concept was so new it wasn't understood sufficiently.
Or, maybe becasuse the Waterfront Redevelopment is so much bigger [by orders of magnitude], takes much more time to occur. and seems so much less certain, that the County was hesistant for these reasons?
But, maybe because the Waterfront Redevelopment is so ambitious, and so strongly supports the concept of sustainability by cleaning up a contaminated urban site to a higher than industrial standard, and requires such a large clean-up of a blighted area to become the valuable magnet for business, recreation and residential use, that it requires a whole new way of evaluating its potential than the County is currently able to do.
If that is the case, then maybe we ought to try a different approach, with fresh eyes and ideas, with new dialogue?
In an exercise last year, 75 community leaders focused on the concept of looking at this redevelopment as essentially designing an entire new neighborhood, and concluded it was a cinch to achieve the highest LEED standards, without much extra effort!
What a boon to Whatcom County that would be!
Just the improved public access to the Bay would be a major attraction.
But that's just the topping on the sundae.
Cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway, the former G-P site -including the ASB-, remediating 2 or 3 former City Landfills, plus other industrial property is a huge beneficial accomplishment!
Cleaning it up to a higher standard than usual just adds multiple bonuses to it.
Using the cleaned up areas for institutions of higher learning, water-dependent uses, businesses and housing not only helps the economics, but it helps the City and County fulfill their Growth Management goals.
Now, that suite of desirable outcomes certainly deserves some very special consideration in my book.
And it also reemphasizes that we really need the County to help us make this happen!
The beauty of the new LIFT legislation is that Bellingham has the absolute inside track to be the first city in the State of Washington that is ready to take advantage of it.
A few larger Cities have used LIFT type financing for special projects before, and with success.
Now that this instrument has been made available to smaller municipalities for qualified projects, it behooves us to take full advantage of it.
Opportunities to become a guinea pig like this are rare, although the potential LIFT pay-off of up to $1 million per year for 25 years is even more rare.
Now, $25 million is a lot of money, but it is only a fraction of what the Port and City will need to invest to make the redevelopment happen over the next 5 years.
But, once it does happen, the pay-off to County, Port and City will be enormous!
And it will be ongoing, literally for many, many year into the future.
That prospect excites me, but it also presents a huge challenge that cannot be escaped.
As you & I know, investments with higher risks are necessary to earn higher returns and rewards.
It does take money to make money, even if the investors are public entities.
As the principal entity under State Law, the County has a major responsibility to consider this redevelopment effort as much a County priority as it is a Port or City priority.
The major difference is the County's investment through LIFT is without the same order of risk as the City and Port will bear.
The Port's mission is focused almost totally on economic development, and they are out there and exposed on this major undertaking.
Fortunately, their pro forma calculations demonstrate their investment can be mad to pay-off in a reasonable length of time.
The City also appears highly leveraged at this point, but must provide some level of infrastructure, services and regulations to support this undertaking with the Port as partner.
The City's pro forma is currently less certain than the Port's, and can use whatever level of County support that can be provided.
These two jurisdictions are literally joined at the hip for the duration of this effort, and that's not all bad, because inter-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to achieve regional goals.
The County's help could make the difference as to whether this ambitious undertaking will succeed or fail.
And be assured a failure would help no one!
It will take real, dedicated leadership from every jurisdiction to see this redevelopment through to completion.
I for one, believe the County is willing to help, provided a method can be found to satisfy its legitimate concerns.
So, I invite the County into a new dialogue about how we can best work together make this Waterfront Redevelopment happen with better equity and more certainty.
--------------------------
I've had some reflections on this present situation, and come to the conclusion the County's reasoning wasn't necessarily shortsighted or flawed.
Here's why:
The County has a history of being very careful about raising its taxes.
The last 12 years have seen no voluntary increase in property tax, and only two increases in sales tax that I recall.
One property tax increase occurred at the time I-695 passed, and helped the City restore substantial losses to its General Fund funding.
The other happened more recently and was focused on public safety and the criminal justice funding.
There may have been other County tax events that I have missed, but they have not been notable in comparison to the ones cited above.
This is a remarkable record of remaining fiscally prudent, despite some glaring needs in the County that remain unaddressed.
With this history in mind, I concluded the County is justified in thinking very carefully about committing ALL its potential property taxes for the Waterfront Redevelopment for the full 25 years, without further information.
For example, if the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds far beyond expectations, that would leave the County ]with funding more than they estimated.
That possibility can be addressed and rectified.
Perhaps, a certain monetary amount over a shorter period of time is preferable for the County.
In that case EDI money might be easier to make available, perhaps even in installments.
If what we need is more certainty regarding the time value of money, then a table of present values could be prepared to allow some choices in amounts and their timing.
Any amount can be raised in many different ways to benefit this, or any other, project.
Recalling the projected cash flow charts the Port presented, it may be more beneficial to our purposes to have the County front-load its contributions and let this fund critical early work.
Like the famous EMILY's list. [Early Money Is Like Yeast]
The time value of early investment grows over time whether additional monies are added or not.
Recall that the County accepted City REET money to build the interim jail, then agreed to credit the City with over 3 times the present monetary value in credits toward the City's obligation in future operating costs.
That was a creative solution that benefited both parties.
Considering this method of calculating value to the redevelopment costs would be extremely helpful to the City in this instance.
Early money would really help -out of proportion to later contributions- because of the several years time lag required for the clean-up, planning and contractual commitments that must precede any substantial returns.
That same dynamic is at work with IRAs, pensions and other investments designed to achieve goals effectively.
The City could work up several scenarios of potential contributions over time and estimate their actual value to the redevelopment, then be ready to propose these in response to any financial offer the County may propose.
Let's don't argue about how the funding would be made available, or how much; just the net positive impact on the redevelopment cash flow.
That way the discussion becomes more of a negotiation of times and amounts that is inherently easier to understand, explain and act upon.
In many respects the County has the same concerns the City has; that the Port stands to gain more than the estimated returns from the redevelopment as it progresses.
Rewards and risks should probably be in the same proportion for all the players.
Only the City seems to be the most likely relative loser financially, in all scenarios, but especially in the short-term.
But, if the Waterfront Redevelopment substantially exceeds expectations, everyone wins, and no one should complain about that because the ultimate benefit accrues to everyone!
------------------
To date, no County money has yet been committed at all to my knowledge.
What is particularly troubling is that some County Officials have even engaged in efforts to thwart the Waterfront Redevelopment, itself, from happening!
What is that about?
A cynic might think that some folks have figured along the following lines:
If the Waterfront Redevelopment should fail, the County could say 'I told you so!'
If the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds, the County will receive the entire tax benefits, but without taking any risk!
I hope that type of cynical thinking isn't rewarded!
I believe the real reason behind the County's reluctance to follow its own stated goals and help the Waterfront Redevelopment succeed lie in the hurried timing of the request, and the large amount of funding potentially involved.
Those things can be rectified, and done so much better in an atmosphere of collaboration and negotiation, but not with insufficient information or pressure tactics.
But, if cynicism is at work behind the County's reluctance to offer its valuable help, that is a different matter entirely.
I sincerely hope that isn't true, and that reasonable heads will prevail.
Accomplishing the Waterfront Redevelopment ought to be the sort of goal everyone can contribute to with vigor.
Our children will thank us for it one day!
----------------------
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis--
---------------------------------------
Back in September of 2006, I decided to e-mail County Council member Ward Nelson, hoping to build a dialogue with him to help lead to the County's support of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool [LIFT] State legislation that had just been sponsored by Representative Kelli Linville, and passed to include Bellingham as one of its initial Pilot Projects.
This new bill to include Bellingham in what amounts to 'tax-increment financing' was seen as a real boon, happening just at the time when financing help - at least the enabling of it - was most needed, as the Port and City proceeded in a good faith effort to redevelop our degraded industrial waterfront.
--------------------
Please give me a call at my home phone xxx before noon tomorrow, or over the weekend at xxx, if convenient.
Otherwise, I'll be back next Monday, Sep 25, for our next City Council meeting.
I asked Ward to call me to discuss LIFT and how the might agree to use that tool to support the ambitious waterfront redevelopment effort being undertaken to stimulate economic development, clean up a polluted industrial area and provide better public access to Bellingham Bay.
I had been very encouraged by reading the Economics section of the County's Comprehensive Plan [at the URL shown below] because the Waterfront Redevelopment seemed to be tailor-made to qualify for substantial Economic Development Incentives [EDI]. Because of the enormous potential for assisting the entire region, I also thought there was a good chance the County would agree to use its LIFT potential, just as the City and the Port of Bellingham had quickly decided to do.
Unfortunately, it turned out I was wrong in this assumption.
And, I was also wrong about the County making available any EDI funds either.
Neither has happened -at least up to now- despite the fact that the Waterfront Redevelopment project clearly qualifies for strong financial assistance by the County's own Comp Plan!
But at the time, I wanted to ask, at least to get an explanation.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/2005/2005%20January%20Comp%20Plan%20-%20.pdf%20with%20.jpg%20maps/k%20Chapter%207%20-%20Economics/Chapter%207-Economics.pdf
----------------------------
The County seems so far ahead of the City in defining its role in economic development, if for no other reason than it has its own written and approved Comp Plan Element specific to Economic Development.
It has been my goal for a few years to have the City develop such an ED Element, which would ideally fit into and support the County's overall vision.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient City Council support for this idea to make this happen, and draft Strategic Guidelines are now being developed.
But, the waterfront redevelopment effort can't wait for that to happen.
If you read the County's Comp Plan, Chapter 7 on Economics, plus the supporting information in Appendix 'C' regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan, these ideas and goals strongly support a major redevelopment just like the waterfront project, which the Port of Bellingham and the City have committed to make happen.
It certainly sounded that way enough to allow the County to support the Market Depot Square project with over $200 k inEDI funding last year.
That was a big help, and the success of that venture has paid off from the moment the facility was opened!
In similar fashion the County's commitment to the Public Facilities District over 5 years ago has greatly assisted that effort,
Unlike the PFD rebates of a portion of sales taxes already paid, a LIFT commitment doesn't identify existing County funds, because that money is never available UNLESS the actually development occurs.
The tax increment in question is associated only with new development within the geographic boundary defined as part of Waterfront Redevelopment
No development, no new taxes.
It's that simple.
Maybe it was a problem to get support for the new, innovative LIFT funding promises because the concept was so new it wasn't understood sufficiently.
Or, maybe becasuse the Waterfront Redevelopment is so much bigger [by orders of magnitude], takes much more time to occur. and seems so much less certain, that the County was hesistant for these reasons?
But, maybe because the Waterfront Redevelopment is so ambitious, and so strongly supports the concept of sustainability by cleaning up a contaminated urban site to a higher than industrial standard, and requires such a large clean-up of a blighted area to become the valuable magnet for business, recreation and residential use, that it requires a whole new way of evaluating its potential than the County is currently able to do.
If that is the case, then maybe we ought to try a different approach, with fresh eyes and ideas, with new dialogue?
In an exercise last year, 75 community leaders focused on the concept of looking at this redevelopment as essentially designing an entire new neighborhood, and concluded it was a cinch to achieve the highest LEED standards, without much extra effort!
What a boon to Whatcom County that would be!
Just the improved public access to the Bay would be a major attraction.
But that's just the topping on the sundae.
Cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway, the former G-P site -including the ASB-, remediating 2 or 3 former City Landfills, plus other industrial property is a huge beneficial accomplishment!
Cleaning it up to a higher standard than usual just adds multiple bonuses to it.
Using the cleaned up areas for institutions of higher learning, water-dependent uses, businesses and housing not only helps the economics, but it helps the City and County fulfill their Growth Management goals.
Now, that suite of desirable outcomes certainly deserves some very special consideration in my book.
And it also reemphasizes that we really need the County to help us make this happen!
The beauty of the new LIFT legislation is that Bellingham has the absolute inside track to be the first city in the State of Washington that is ready to take advantage of it.
A few larger Cities have used LIFT type financing for special projects before, and with success.
Now that this instrument has been made available to smaller municipalities for qualified projects, it behooves us to take full advantage of it.
Opportunities to become a guinea pig like this are rare, although the potential LIFT pay-off of up to $1 million per year for 25 years is even more rare.
Now, $25 million is a lot of money, but it is only a fraction of what the Port and City will need to invest to make the redevelopment happen over the next 5 years.
But, once it does happen, the pay-off to County, Port and City will be enormous!
And it will be ongoing, literally for many, many year into the future.
That prospect excites me, but it also presents a huge challenge that cannot be escaped.
As you & I know, investments with higher risks are necessary to earn higher returns and rewards.
It does take money to make money, even if the investors are public entities.
As the principal entity under State Law, the County has a major responsibility to consider this redevelopment effort as much a County priority as it is a Port or City priority.
The major difference is the County's investment through LIFT is without the same order of risk as the City and Port will bear.
The Port's mission is focused almost totally on economic development, and they are out there and exposed on this major undertaking.
Fortunately, their pro forma calculations demonstrate their investment can be mad to pay-off in a reasonable length of time.
The City also appears highly leveraged at this point, but must provide some level of infrastructure, services and regulations to support this undertaking with the Port as partner.
The City's pro forma is currently less certain than the Port's, and can use whatever level of County support that can be provided.
These two jurisdictions are literally joined at the hip for the duration of this effort, and that's not all bad, because inter-jurisdictional cooperation is necessary to achieve regional goals.
The County's help could make the difference as to whether this ambitious undertaking will succeed or fail.
And be assured a failure would help no one!
It will take real, dedicated leadership from every jurisdiction to see this redevelopment through to completion.
I for one, believe the County is willing to help, provided a method can be found to satisfy its legitimate concerns.
So, I invite the County into a new dialogue about how we can best work together make this Waterfront Redevelopment happen with better equity and more certainty.
--------------------------
I've had some reflections on this present situation, and come to the conclusion the County's reasoning wasn't necessarily shortsighted or flawed.
Here's why:
The County has a history of being very careful about raising its taxes.
The last 12 years have seen no voluntary increase in property tax, and only two increases in sales tax that I recall.
One property tax increase occurred at the time I-695 passed, and helped the City restore substantial losses to its General Fund funding.
The other happened more recently and was focused on public safety and the criminal justice funding.
There may have been other County tax events that I have missed, but they have not been notable in comparison to the ones cited above.
This is a remarkable record of remaining fiscally prudent, despite some glaring needs in the County that remain unaddressed.
With this history in mind, I concluded the County is justified in thinking very carefully about committing ALL its potential property taxes for the Waterfront Redevelopment for the full 25 years, without further information.
For example, if the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds far beyond expectations, that would leave the County ]with funding more than they estimated.
That possibility can be addressed and rectified.
Perhaps, a certain monetary amount over a shorter period of time is preferable for the County.
In that case EDI money might be easier to make available, perhaps even in installments.
If what we need is more certainty regarding the time value of money, then a table of present values could be prepared to allow some choices in amounts and their timing.
Any amount can be raised in many different ways to benefit this, or any other, project.
Recalling the projected cash flow charts the Port presented, it may be more beneficial to our purposes to have the County front-load its contributions and let this fund critical early work.
Like the famous EMILY's list. [Early Money Is Like Yeast]
The time value of early investment grows over time whether additional monies are added or not.
Recall that the County accepted City REET money to build the interim jail, then agreed to credit the City with over 3 times the present monetary value in credits toward the City's obligation in future operating costs.
That was a creative solution that benefited both parties.
Considering this method of calculating value to the redevelopment costs would be extremely helpful to the City in this instance.
Early money would really help -out of proportion to later contributions- because of the several years time lag required for the clean-up, planning and contractual commitments that must precede any substantial returns.
That same dynamic is at work with IRAs, pensions and other investments designed to achieve goals effectively.
The City could work up several scenarios of potential contributions over time and estimate their actual value to the redevelopment, then be ready to propose these in response to any financial offer the County may propose.
Let's don't argue about how the funding would be made available, or how much; just the net positive impact on the redevelopment cash flow.
That way the discussion becomes more of a negotiation of times and amounts that is inherently easier to understand, explain and act upon.
In many respects the County has the same concerns the City has; that the Port stands to gain more than the estimated returns from the redevelopment as it progresses.
Rewards and risks should probably be in the same proportion for all the players.
Only the City seems to be the most likely relative loser financially, in all scenarios, but especially in the short-term.
But, if the Waterfront Redevelopment substantially exceeds expectations, everyone wins, and no one should complain about that because the ultimate benefit accrues to everyone!
------------------
To date, no County money has yet been committed at all to my knowledge.
What is particularly troubling is that some County Officials have even engaged in efforts to thwart the Waterfront Redevelopment, itself, from happening!
What is that about?
A cynic might think that some folks have figured along the following lines:
If the Waterfront Redevelopment should fail, the County could say 'I told you so!'
If the Waterfront Redevelopment succeeds, the County will receive the entire tax benefits, but without taking any risk!
I hope that type of cynical thinking isn't rewarded!
I believe the real reason behind the County's reluctance to follow its own stated goals and help the Waterfront Redevelopment succeed lie in the hurried timing of the request, and the large amount of funding potentially involved.
Those things can be rectified, and done so much better in an atmosphere of collaboration and negotiation, but not with insufficient information or pressure tactics.
But, if cynicism is at work behind the County's reluctance to offer its valuable help, that is a different matter entirely.
I sincerely hope that isn't true, and that reasonable heads will prevail.
Accomplishing the Waterfront Redevelopment ought to be the sort of goal everyone can contribute to with vigor.
Our children will thank us for it one day!
----------------------
"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing." - Warren Bennis--
Friday, September 28, 2007
Ever Heard of LIDAR?
No, it's not the name of M*A*S*H Radar's brother, at least to my knowledge, but it is similar to RADAR.
According to information posted at this URL, a brief description is offered:
http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/
The USGS-NPS-NASA EAARL (Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar) system is a
'Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data.
This technology is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA scientists to document topographic changes along shorelines.
These data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches).
After a baseline data set has been created, follow-up flights can be used to detect shoreline changes.'
Or, according to :Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target.
The prevalent method to determine distance to an object or surface is to use laser pulses.
Like the similar radar technology, which uses radio waves instead of light, the range to an object is determined by measuring the time delay between transmission of a pulse and detection of the reflected signal.
LIDAR technology has application in geography, geology, geomorphology, seismology, remote sensing and atmospheric physics.'
and, under 'Applications':
'In geology and seismology a combination of aircraft-based LIDAR and GPS have evolved into an important tool for detecting faults and measuring uplift.
The output of the two technologies can produce extremely accurate elevation models for terrain that can even measure ground elevation through trees.
This combination was used most famously to find the location of the Seattle Fault in Washington, USA.
This combination is also being used to measure uplift at Mt. St. Helens by using data from before and after the 2004 uplift.'
A really fascinating way of observing what can be achieved by LIDAR technology is to visit Google Earth at:
http://earth.google.com/
----------------------
So why is this a topic of interest to people who live in Whatcom County?
Funny, you should ask!
Here's what I know.
There is proposal developed by three geologists, experienced in local topography, titled 'Western Whatcom County Geologic Mapping Project'.
The idea is to use 'extensive prior field work and newly-available LIDAR technology [to] make possible the production of a new generation of geologic maps for western Whatcom County.'
'These maps will define certain critical areas [wetlands, landslides, steep slopes, debris-flow fans, etc.]; allow improved assessments of groundwater availability, groundwater recharge areas, links between groundwater and in-stream flow, and potential for groundwater contamination; better define mineral resource potentials, active tectonics, and paleoseismicity; and provide a more robust framework for seismic site-response studies.'
That's a mouthful for a short introduction, isn't it?
I think its a great idea to combine local talent, existing information and high tech methodology to get important, accurate data into a form that can be reliably and more easily used.
I won't go into much more detail for now, except to say this proposal anticipates a total cost to Whatcom County of just under $200,000 for work to be done from the latter half of 2007 through 2011.
There are 2 funding options offered, with other variations possible:
A. Whatcom County could contract with one of the three principals, who would invoice the County quarterly as pre-defined milestones are reached. Or
B. Whatcom County could enter into a co-operative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, which would then contract with one of the three principals, and be in part responsible for the quality and completion of the work.
Under this option, the USGS would invoice the County quarterly, plus add 49.13% as USGS overhead.
In either scenario, significant donation of time and/or in-kind contribution is offered. One principal expects to donate his time, estimated at 30% of the actual total value for 3 years, or $200,000. Another principal would be be compensated by in-kind contributions from USGS for a total of $300,000. The third principal requires 50% of her time over 4.5 years to be supported by Whatcom County at about $45,000 per year, totalling $200,000.
Adding all that up means Whatcom County could get $700,000 in value for $200,000.
That's about $45,000 per year for 4.5 years for you mathematicians.
The maps resulting from this effort will be published either by USGS or Washington Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources in cooperation with USGS.
Final products will include both GIS-ready digital data and traditional maps [both pdf and published paper products] with map graphics, cross sections, Correlation of Map Unit diagrams, Descriptions of Map Units, tables of age data, and extensive explanatory text.
-------------
This proposal has been presented to our County Administration for its consideration and action, which one hopes will be forthcoming soon.
Of course, any request for funding must come before the County Council for action.
This being budget preparation time, I hope this item is included.
Stay tuned.
According to information posted at this URL, a brief description is offered:
http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/
The USGS-NPS-NASA EAARL (Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar) system is a
'Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data.
This technology is being used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA scientists to document topographic changes along shorelines.
These data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches).
After a baseline data set has been created, follow-up flights can be used to detect shoreline changes.'
Or, according to :Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target.
The prevalent method to determine distance to an object or surface is to use laser pulses.
Like the similar radar technology, which uses radio waves instead of light, the range to an object is determined by measuring the time delay between transmission of a pulse and detection of the reflected signal.
LIDAR technology has application in geography, geology, geomorphology, seismology, remote sensing and atmospheric physics.'
and, under 'Applications':
'In geology and seismology a combination of aircraft-based LIDAR and GPS have evolved into an important tool for detecting faults and measuring uplift.
The output of the two technologies can produce extremely accurate elevation models for terrain that can even measure ground elevation through trees.
This combination was used most famously to find the location of the Seattle Fault in Washington, USA.
This combination is also being used to measure uplift at Mt. St. Helens by using data from before and after the 2004 uplift.'
A really fascinating way of observing what can be achieved by LIDAR technology is to visit Google Earth at:
http://earth.google.com/
----------------------
So why is this a topic of interest to people who live in Whatcom County?
Funny, you should ask!
Here's what I know.
There is proposal developed by three geologists, experienced in local topography, titled 'Western Whatcom County Geologic Mapping Project'.
The idea is to use 'extensive prior field work and newly-available LIDAR technology [to] make possible the production of a new generation of geologic maps for western Whatcom County.'
'These maps will define certain critical areas [wetlands, landslides, steep slopes, debris-flow fans, etc.]; allow improved assessments of groundwater availability, groundwater recharge areas, links between groundwater and in-stream flow, and potential for groundwater contamination; better define mineral resource potentials, active tectonics, and paleoseismicity; and provide a more robust framework for seismic site-response studies.'
That's a mouthful for a short introduction, isn't it?
I think its a great idea to combine local talent, existing information and high tech methodology to get important, accurate data into a form that can be reliably and more easily used.
I won't go into much more detail for now, except to say this proposal anticipates a total cost to Whatcom County of just under $200,000 for work to be done from the latter half of 2007 through 2011.
There are 2 funding options offered, with other variations possible:
A. Whatcom County could contract with one of the three principals, who would invoice the County quarterly as pre-defined milestones are reached. Or
B. Whatcom County could enter into a co-operative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey, which would then contract with one of the three principals, and be in part responsible for the quality and completion of the work.
Under this option, the USGS would invoice the County quarterly, plus add 49.13% as USGS overhead.
In either scenario, significant donation of time and/or in-kind contribution is offered. One principal expects to donate his time, estimated at 30% of the actual total value for 3 years, or $200,000. Another principal would be be compensated by in-kind contributions from USGS for a total of $300,000. The third principal requires 50% of her time over 4.5 years to be supported by Whatcom County at about $45,000 per year, totalling $200,000.
Adding all that up means Whatcom County could get $700,000 in value for $200,000.
That's about $45,000 per year for 4.5 years for you mathematicians.
The maps resulting from this effort will be published either by USGS or Washington Dept of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources in cooperation with USGS.
Final products will include both GIS-ready digital data and traditional maps [both pdf and published paper products] with map graphics, cross sections, Correlation of Map Unit diagrams, Descriptions of Map Units, tables of age data, and extensive explanatory text.
-------------
This proposal has been presented to our County Administration for its consideration and action, which one hopes will be forthcoming soon.
Of course, any request for funding must come before the County Council for action.
This being budget preparation time, I hope this item is included.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
