Northern Neighbors Mayor
Candidate Forum – May 2, 2007
[Note: Candidates were asked to limit their responses to 200 words. In some cases, some candidates ignored this request. Their entire response is included here.]
1. Strengths.
What makes you the best
candidate to be Mayor of
I have
concentrated my work as a Whatcom County Councilman to creating policies that
protect the treasured character of my home town and rural surroundings. I grew up in a
The issues in this campaign are easy to identify. The solutions are much more complex, requiring
innovation, experience and skilled leadership.
Our city needs a mayor with the skills and ability to build a diverse
coalition that gives a voice
to everyone, not just the noisiest or the wealthiest citizens.
My background is in
business and management. My passion is
public service. I have served on nearly
a dozen non-profit community boards and commissions for over 20 years,
including the
Beyond Greenways levy and organizing the NOPE Campaign to prevent a large,
unnecessary power line through the heart of Whatcom County.
Many people have told me how tired they are of “politics as
usual.” As a community, we can continue
with divisive, antagonistic and seemingly endless processes of
decision-making. Or – we can mobilize
our shared intentionality, resources, intelligence, compassion and creativity
toward a common goal of a better city. We need to actively
visualize and plan what we want our community to become, not just react to
problems as they appear.
As a
candidate for Mayor, I am unique in terms of coming with solid administrative
experience – 7 years as Deputy Administrator of the City of
I’m a strong leader and I’ll work with you to set a new way forward to cleaner water, good neighborhood planning and transparent, respectful government. My positions on issues and budget priorities as well as my government and private sector experience make me the best candidate for Mayor.
My record is strong: I’ve led the County Council on
protecting
My administrative experience is solid: I’m a licensed
geologist and engineering geologist and in 1997 I started an environmental and
geotechnical consulting business. One of my proudest accomplishments is that I
managed to expand that business substantially while serving on the County
Council. I did that through smart time management, hiring and retaining good
people, building tremendous trust between our clients on simple and very
complex projects, and always keeping within project budgets. In my career I’ve overseen large complex projects
including projects with budgets in excess of 30 million dollars.
I have
the experience without the baggage, vision without the ego. I know the workings of government,
administratively and politically, and have a demonstrated ability to build
consensus and get things done. My commitment
and imagination helped implement intercounty bus
service despite the doubts of transit agencies.
When the
I believe my experience as an elected representative for the
people of
2. Weaknesses.
Many in our neighborhoods
feel that the choice of Mayor this year will be between vision/leadership and
administrative experience. What do you
perceive as your weakest attribute of the two and how will you address this?
My
weakness will be perceived as a lack of administrative experience. I feel very strong on the vision/leadership
aspect. However I think we all need to
look deeper then whether one has actual administrative experience. I can think of numerous examples of people
who have administrative experience who are poorly regarded by the people
actually managed. I think more important
is to look at which candidates have rich experience leading group dynamics
where judgment and worth are based on things being accomplished; hopefully, in
ways where people who participate and help feel respected and appreciated. I would hope that people would look at which
candidates have experience and records that provide insight into whether that
person has the capacity to be a good administrator. I believe I possess that experience and have
that record. As a history buff I wonder
if Abraham Lincoln would ever have become the greatest President in American
history because his only administrative experience was running a small law firm
with one partner and a clerk.
I see my visionary and leadership skills as both equal and necessary to the office of mayor.
I have experience in management, budgeting, marketing and community relations, both professionally, and as a volunteer. No other candidate in this race has all of this experience and skill, and every candidate but myself, is entering this race with a pre-set agenda, political leanings, and special interests that will preclude the interests of our city as a whole.
My personal studies of history, architecture and the design of cities around the world has given me a unique ability to create a vision for a city livable on a human scale. In 1980, I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Design from WWU, and that education taught me that -we need to make what we build fit people, not the other way around. I’ve spent a lot of time learning about what makes a city a place where people want to live, where small, locally owned businesses can thrive, and neighborhoods can be comfortable knowing they have good communications with their City Staff. This is not the usual political background. I am not the usual politician.
With our current growth rate,
we will be grappling with many challenges and the choices we make will
determine if we end up looking like
The
choice can’t be “either/or”. The choice
can not be between vision/leadership and administrative experience.
Since I
believe that vision has to be arrived at collectively, I will work to include
the many divergent points of view and find the common ground to move forward
together.
I am a strong and visionary leader with solid administrative
experience. While you may know that you can count on me to be a strong leader
on the issues you care about, you may not be aware of my strong administrative
background.
I have a record of
success in business and in managing projects. As a geologist I’ve managed large
cleanups, including a superfund investigation and cleanup projects with
multi-million dollar budgets. Since 1997 I built a company from scratch, while
also serving on the County Council. My company’s revenues have quadrupled in
the last 3 years alone, while I was aggressively pushing forward legislation on
the County Council to protect farmland and
In addition to revenue expansion, my company has provided
deeply discounted consulting services to the Skagit Land Trust, Lummi Island
Community Trust and Kulshan Community Land Trust,
free consulting to Friends of Sumas Mountain and have donated to the Whatcom
Peace and
As an administrator my best skills are in hiring and
retaining good people as well as paying close attention to the finances so that
projects pencil out. I’ll bring that administrative experience to the job of
Mayor.
My
perceived weakness: a lack of elective
experience. However, on examination this
weakness becomes strength. Without baggage
or bruised relationships in City Hall or County Council, I present an
opportunity to build positive relationships.
Unconstrained by past failures, I can build the meaningful partnerships
required to move our community forward, and build a better
I’m
running because current elected officials have failed to transform vision into
action. My skills promote success. I managed a $500 million project through a
60% funding loss after I-695, and kept it on track. I found funding for intercounty
transit and got it implemented despite professionals’ doubts. I have illustrated the benefits of building
bike lanes to auto-centric politicians, while countering the pie-in-the-sky
attitudes of some environmentalists. My
vision is reality-based.
Vision/Leadership includes the ability to describe where you
want to go in a clear manner that people understand and agree with and will
want to follow. Administrative
experience is a skill necessary to properly run any group of people. I think a good mayor should have all of these
qualities and I believe that I do.
Growth and Planning:
3. Consistent Development Process and
Neighborhood Input.
The spot
rezone process that was recently used for the Squalicum
Lofts proposal created an unfair situation pitting neighbors against the
developer, Planning staff, and policy makers in an unpredictable process. Without changes, other neighborhoods and
developers will be similarly affected in the future. What are your observations of this process
and what would you propose as Mayor working with Planning staff to protect the
integrity of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, neighborhood plan updates,
and a meaningful proactive exchange of ideas with stakeholders?
The spot rezone was denied and illustrated the need to have inclusive
planning processes completed before considering this type of request.
In order to protect the treasured character of ALL the
qualities we love about
that
favor infill and holding the line on constant expansion of our growth
boundaries to the detriment of rural character.
Such expansion, over time, will result in urbanization of the entire
region. Something we say we don’t
want.
The Squalicum Lofts conflict could have been avoided had a
process occurred before the consideration that allowed neighbors to participate
in identifying where a neighborhood village should be sited. That neighborhood vision could then be
expressed in a plan update. I support
empowering the neighborhoods with authority to propose siting
of such locations. Certainly this
process is underway with the plan update process but I would provide more
leadership in pushing the idea of siting neighborhood
centers. Such master planning of our
neighborhoods with public buy in would provide predictability to a developer
and acceptance by the neighborhood.
We find ourselves in a situation where everyone is angry and
suspicious of everyone else.
Neighborhoods, City staff, builders and citizens feel dismissed,
disrespected and ignored. Customer service provided by the city to the
community must improve. This means
more than just moving the furniture around-
it means that the fundamental attitude of city management has to change.
It is the responsibility of city government to cultivate and
insure clean, honest and open communication with its citizens and its
employees, so that procedures are consistent and the law is applied equally and
fairly, no matter whom you know- or who you are.
As mayor, I would immediately undertake a systematic
management revolution, clearly identifying the mission of the city and of each
of the departments, seeking to improve communication by insuring information
consistency with all constituencies, while removing obstacles and
inefficiencies hindering staff from doing their jobs. It is my belief that people will do a good
job when given good leadership and that city of
One of the most important things is for developers
to work with the neighborhoods in the early, conceptual stages of a project
before substantial costs have been incurred - as opposed to waiting until
engineering plans have been developed and streets laid out - to determine what
the neighborhood concerns are and to endeavor to reach common ground. As Mayor,
I would direct the Planning Dept to require a neighborhood meeting (or series
of meetings) in the pre-application stage of a project, particularly a proposed
neighborhood plan amendment, to ensure a process of early and continuous input,
meaningful dialogue, coordination of the project with the neighborhood plan and
consistency with Comp Plan goals and policies. To address neighborhood concerns
as to whether a project is a spot rezone, I would direct the Legal Dept to
review each proposed neighborhood plan amendment to confirm that any such
proposal does not involve a spot rezone.
Neighborhood plans need to be adhered to. Simply put,
rezones should only go forward when they are consistent the neighborhood plan
unless it can be demonstrated that there is a clear mistake in the plan. That
is the criteria I have followed for planning throughout my tenure on the County
Council. In
Neighborhood planning will be a key priority of my
administration. Numerous neighborhoods have stepped forward to begin the
planning process and I will invest in neighborhood planning so that
neighborhoods have the support they need to create and implement their own
visions. I will use this process to determine investment priorities so that our
streets become safer and our tax dollars go toward steady improvements where we
live.
There are some significant problems in our current planning
and permitting processes. These will not
be addressed overnight, but with hard work and a commitment from the community,
we can make lasting, positive change.
The status quo can be unfair to neighborhoods, individuals, and to
developers and property owners. Current
zoning can allow certain uses by right which are at times
inconsistent with the desires of the community and neighbors, while at the same
time disallowing developments which most of us would applaud.
The current system too frequently favors the obstructionist
neighbor and the greed-driven developer over neighbors and developers who would
partner to build a more vibrant community.
By working together, neighborhood by neighborhood, to establish design
standards and aesthetic goals, we can revamp the code to steer us towards the
built community we want and deserve, rather than acceptance of whatever is
thrown our way.
As Mayor, I will bring together planning staff
and stakeholders to begin this effort.
Furthermore, I will not let this effort be process-only, as has happened
too often in our recent past, but rather will work to implement the process
outcomes, sooner rather than later.
There are improvements that must be made to the development
process. If criteria are developed and
agreed to by the staff and the Council they must be used. You can’t have predictability if the Council
makes up their own rules as they go.
When the City removed the land use regulations from the neighborhood plans
it drastically reduced the predictability in the comprehensive plan. Homes are the largest investments most people
ever make. Predictability is essential
for anyone to have faith in land use planning.
The problem with communication with the city of
4. Urban Center Infill.
Do you support the
Comprehensive Plan’s direction of infill housing created through Urban Centers
and if so, how can this method be expedited in order to take pressure off leap-frogging in inappropriate areas?
Yes, I
support urban centers very much. In 2004
I co-founded the Bellingham Growth Forums.
The object was to establish thoughtful methods to infill in ways that
actually enhanced the quality of life in
Intelligent, appropriate infill housing is one of the critical ways we can end our participation in the American addiction to sprawl. But because the process of planning has become so divisive, this important component of our city comprehensive plan is becoming a stumbling block- not a solution.
We have spent so much time planning to create a plan for our planning, we haven’t actually completed the majority of our neighborhood plans. A wise man gave me this advice about leadership, “Make decisions. If you make a mistake, correct it and keep going. If you hesitate to make decisions, everybody waits and a terrible thing happens… nothing.”
We have been so seemingly paralyzed by fear, fear of
failure, fear of growth, fear of change that we have ground our confidence down
to the last nerve. I believe in the
intelligence and wisdom of the citizens of
I support Urban Centers as a method of
encouraging infill and growth, while protecting neighborhood character in our single
family neighborhoods. I am presently part of a group that is exploring the
possibility of an urban village along
Right now, however, the City has no master plans
for any Urban Centers proposed in the Comp Plan. As Mayor, I would direct the Planning Dept to
place high priority on beginning the master planning process for the major
proposed Urban Centers.
One of the realities we must deal with regarding
“leapfrogging” is that a property owner has the right to develop his property
in accordance with current zoning and other applicable laws.
Yes, I support redevelopment to create high quality urban
centers. Done well, they have the potential to add vitality, jobs and homes,
making our neighborhoods even better places to live. Planning for great urban
villages will be a project that will require the full participation of the
neighborhoods and these plans must meet the criteria of making the local
community a better place.
Over the past number of years the city invested resources
into a proposal to move the city line 2 miles to the north. At the same time
they talked about urban villages yet declined to commit the needed resources to
create policies for urban villages and put them in place. I believe we can
provide opportunities for quality redevelopment and good investments within our
city and that sprawl is not the solution to our growth pressures. A massive
expansion of the city borders will not make our existing neighborhoods better
places to live. Only a consistent investment of resources into our
neighborhoods will get the job done.
Under my administration planning priorities will be funded,
staff will work closely with the neighborhoods and the citizens and we’ll move
forward together to find solutions.
I support
the idea of infill housing through Urban Centers, but current approaches to how
development is implemented must be changed.
Most opposition to infill is tied to historical missteps in
implementation, and to ineffective incorporation of neighborhoods into the
planning effort. When closely examined,
neighborhood fears of density are more accurately characterized as fears of
badly designed structures being built next door, and to the deafness of
officials towards neighborhood input and concerns. We must revisit zoning codes with an eye
toward goal-based zoning, rather than ad hoc standards which serve neither the
neighborhoods, the development community, nor the city well.
By
empowering neighborhoods in a conversation about what their vision of their
neighborhood’s character is, meaningful design goals and standards can be
developed which maintain (and increase) a neighborhood’s desirability and
value, while also increasing predictability for developers who comply with the
vision and character of the community.
This ultimately allows for greater infill, and greater densities, while
preserving essential neighborhood attributes.
The
result of this approach is that we have a more efficient city, with
infrastructure and service costs held down, while livability is increased. A corollary benefit is that predictability is
increased for responsible development.
5. Watershed Comprehensive Plan.
How will
you move the community to embrace an overriding vision with specific goals for stormwater management and land acquisition in the
As a Whatcom County Councilman from
Like so many of the arguments that we find ourselves
involved in Bellingham, people have chosen a side and have never actually worked
together for a common goal. The issue of
For the wider
More immediately, for the long-term health of our Lake
Whatcom Reservoir, acquiring additional property soon in the watershed is a
primary goal. As Mayor I would work closely with County, State and Federal
officials to secure funds for purchasing significant portions of available
land. Additionally, I will work with City departments and our watershed
partners to initiate additional best practices to keep pesticides, herbicides
and other pollutants from entering Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
As a scientist I’ve read the studies and I’m certain of
this: it’s time to act. I will prioritize
1)
financing mechanisms to buy the remaining lots or
development rights in the watershed in a fair manner,
2)
a firm policy of creating no new lots in the watershed,
3)
fixing the broken storm water systems,
4)
ensuring we keep 75% of our watershed forested, and
5)
restoring the streams in the urban areas of the watershed.
A fundamental responsibility of city government is to
provide safe, cost effective drinking water to its citizens. Delay is costly.
Actions leading to restoration will begin on my watch. Our families and our
economy depend on that.
Getting consensus on critical, yet challenging issues
requires first identifying key areas of agreement. For a template, I recommend “Getting to Yes’
by Roger Fisher and Bruce Ury. For the Lake Whatcom Watershed, there is
overwhelming agreement that we must ensure the long term purity and safety of
our water supply. There is also
outstanding research demonstrating the degradation of the lake over time, and
the recent acceleration of that deterioration.
We know the causes of pollution in the lake: phosphorus intrusion from development and stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, hydrocarbon
pollution from road runoff and abandoned vehicles, etcetera. Not entirely clear—although becoming
clearer—is the risk associated with each of these and how to effectively
mitigate them or eliminate the pollution in the first place, particularly as it
relates to the most problematic pollutant, phosphorus. Partnering with
6. Funding Choices.
In last
week’s Cascadia Weekly Gristle Column, Tim Johnson
declares
Both deserve our concentrated attention. Having said that one could make a favorable
argument that protection of Lake Whatcom is an absolute necessity and the
other, comparatively, a fortunate luxury afforded by timing and our geographic
endowments. Clean water is a
requirement; a beautiful, clean, thriving waterfront is something we all very
much want. I would prioritize them both and concentrate efforts on mechanisms
that fund their needs to the highest extent our public and council will see fit
to fund. Special recognition should be
conceded, however, that emergency needs to enhance protections for our drinking
water warrant the edge on ultimate priorities.
That priority has been reflected in my work on the Whatcom County
Council
It’s not
an either/or proposition.
We do not have the luxury of choosing between these two issues. In both cases, the city of
The
The waterfront area must be master planned, and development
there will occur over the next 20 to 30 years. As Mayor I will work with the
Port to ensure that the costs to the City for infrastructure development over
those 30 years are financially prudent.
Some of the expenditures in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir
watershed are more pressing and will have to be made over the next five
critical years to make sure we have a pure water supply in the near term and
for future generations.
Safe, affordable drinking water for you and your family will
be among my highest priorities. Cities all over the world protect their source
of drinking water because that’s the cheapest option in the long-term. It makes
sense. If
We can’t afford everything. If you’ve juggled bills, you
know that paying for your home, your food and your utilities takes precedence
over remodeling your kitchen. Municipal finances may be a little more
complicated but the basic principle applies: our fundamental needs for good
neighborhood planning, clean, affordable drinking water and police and fire
services must be paid first. Those are our basic bills, those are my priorities
and it will be my job to make sure those bills get paid.
Beyond City financing of watershed restoration, I will work
with the County, State and Federal government and make our watershed the
priority it should be for grant funding.
What higher priority can a community have above clean
drinking water? While the acquisition of
the GP property offers incredible opportunities for our future, it should not
be above the needs of protecting and preserving
Funding is rarely an either-or situation. Funds for economic development do not
directly compete with environmental funds, and emerging situations, such as
As Mayor,
Budgeting is always a matter of prioritization. We absolutely must have clean safe drinking
water. Redevelopment of the former
Georgia Pacific site is a rare opportunity to reconnect
Waterfront
Redevelopment:
7.
Harbor Cleanup.
Describe, briefly, the key features of
the cleanup plan favored by the
We
sometimes forget that cleanup plans for the uplands is just beginning. The Port and Ecology have just started the
preliminary “scoping” process for a forthcoming environmental impact
statement. So there still is no cleanup
plan for a substantial portion of the “New Whatcom” project. What is talked about is the aquatic aspect
relating to the waterways and the ASB. I
have read the Port’s preferred alternative and believe it presents some
difficult issues. The plan meets State
regulations under the Model Toxics Control Act.
But questions remain: Is it
adequate to protect public health? No project in
I
have read the agreements. What strikes
me is they are not yet ratified.
The
Department of Natural Resources review of the
Capping
in place the mercury contamination in the waterway and log pond provides a
significant and virtually permanent protection from this contamination. Capping in the log pond needs to be
re-engineered to prevent some of the leaking at the edges to provide complete
and effective protection from recontamination and this is addressed in the
recommendation. The recommended 6 ft is
an additional 3 ft more than has been shown effective in other similar waterway
sites where this type of mitigation has worked.
While dangerous, the mercury levels are relatively low and the stable
physical state is such that once capped a very safe condition will exist. Provision and money are in place to regularly
monitor the safety over time.
The
material in the bottom of the ASB is another matter, this is highly
contaminated sludge and its removal to an upland fill site is important and
prudent. The Port’s plan to then to
reclaim the ASB as a state-of-the-art environmental model boat harbor makes
excellent sense. This plan creates
habitat where none has ever existed, it continues the habitat restoration
undertaken by the city in the Squalicum Creek estuary
and creates a new revenue stream to help pay for this and other cleanup that
will be done on the site.
I
have read the Interlocal Agreements and reviewed the
supplemental agreements. I believe in
the initial agreements the economic burden is heavy for the City of
I
agree with the Bellingham Herald’s assessment that as much as is possible, the
redevelopment of the waterfront should be self-financing. I believe this is possible if we are smart,
if we do not underestimate the value of what we have, and if we continue to
seek a win/win partnership with the Port.
Ultimately, if either the Port or the City is forced into an untenable
financial position, neither will win and everyone will suffer. It is in our mutual best interest that the
City and the Port work to assure success for everybody.
As a minimum standard, the
clean up should be done at the level appropriate for the use of the property.
The Interlocal Agreement and supplements between the
City and the Port describe a jointly prepared development plan, regulations and
“a development agreement to insure that the redevelopment is financially
feasible for both jurisdictions and that the redevelopment reflects the
interests of the City and Port and their constituents”.
Since the initial
agreement, estimates for the City’s costs to provide infrastructure for the
redevelopment have risen to the $200 million level, the City will need to
renegotiate with the Port so that the eventual financial obligations the City
faces will be reasonable and affordable.
The current cleanup plan the Port and City support involves
capping the majority of contaminated marine sediments in the Whatcom Waterway
and within the highly contaminated log pond next to the waterway. The Port is
planning to use State cleanup money to excavate low level contaminants from the
ASB and turn the ASB into a boat marina.
Cleanup plans have not been proposed for the contaminated land
however; early documents by the Port’s consultant state an interest in leaving
many of the toxins, including mercury contaminated groundwater and dangerous
waste dump sites, capped in place with parks and buildings placed over and
around these contaminated areas.
As a geologist I manage cleanup of contaminated sites. I
have never had a client who wanted to leave toxins buried. They pay for
cleaning up contamination because it pays - clean property is valuable,
contaminated sites are not. If cleanup pencils out for private property owners
why wouldn’t the same economic factors be at play for publicly owned waterfront
land that was purchased for $1?
Are you
satisfied with this plan/agreement?
No. This will severely limit development options and will
likely be a considerable liability issue for investors in the area of these
sites.
Have you read the Interlocal Agreement (and the three Supplemental Agreements) between the City and the Port and is it a “fair” agreement for both parties?
Yes, I’ve read them and no, this agreement is fundamentally
unfair to the City. I do not believe it makes sense to abdicate zoning
authority, environmental policy authority, or to not levy impact fees to pay
for infrastructure.
The redevelopment of the waterfront will take decades and
before we commit significant financial resources we need to take the time to
make sure the finances make sense and are fair, that it’s cleaned up and that
the redevelopment has the strong public support it will need to be successful.
The
clean-up plan is a hybrid of dredging and capping of contaminated sediments.
The ASB would be developed as a marina to meet demand for additional
moorage. Having read the Interlocal and Supplemental Agreements regarding New
Whatcom, I find them troublingly inequitable.
From my perspective, the major benefit the City gets is control over the
area, but at a tremendous cost. The
initial agreement between the Port and GP was flawed to begin with,
transferring risk which rightfully lay with the private sector—e.g., GP—to the
public, with insufficient safeguards.
Ensuing agreements between the Port and
The process needs to
slow down while critical questions about the cleanup, redevelopment and funding
are answered. The waterfront
redevelopment is a multigenerational investment; done poorly, our grandchildren
will be paying the price long after we are gone; done right, they—and we—will
reap tremendous benefits.
The “Waterfront” redevelopment plan proposed by the
8.
Infrastructure:
What is your “back of the envelope”
list of Capital needs and your guess as to the cost? By how much would your list exceed the
borrowing capacity of the COB? At what
point would the amount borrowed lead to higher interest rates? What would be your priorities?
No
one knows the true cost of these capital needs today, especially without
knowledge of costs for upland cleanup.
We can predict based on best current information. Technicians and analysts provide that
information and help. A mayoral
candidate is without that information.
Initial
infrastructure improvements that best stimulate the blossoming of New Whatcom
is the first priority. Estimations on
what these initial projects are should be determined in a thoughtful, logical
way that draws on the talent and expertise of our community. Efforts must proceed with buy in from our
citizens. It is known that a substantial gap exists between
projected revenues and the cost of implementing necessary infrastructure. I would accept that reality and do the best
we can with our resources. The Mayor
will be instrumental in ensuring that processes exist to make these decisions
in ways that are fair. General criteria
would guide my leadership in this area:
we cannot bankrupt the City pursuing an amenity like the waterfront; we
must be careful to not publicly subsidize development where development should
pay an appropriate share; we must not so favor the waterfront to the detriment
of other much desired improvements in other parts of our town.
The
challenge of meeting the infrastructure needs of this city is much larger than
the back of any envelope I know about. I
would not extend
I
will take a more enlightened approach than we have in the recent past. As the Mayor’s Budget Advisory Board pointed
out, the city has tended to underestimate revenue. This can create a host of misinformed
assumptions about how much money the city has, what we should spend and what
things we can do. Before we can make any
decisions we must be confident about what we have.
That
said, our downtown’s aging infrastructure needs attention. We have utility lines hanging around that no
longer have any function and should be removed.
Some of the sewer and water lines in the downtown haven’t been touched
since they were originally installed.
This is not interesting stuff for many people, but in is critical to our
successful development. I’ve been working with downtown for many years and have listened to people talk about the
problems there. The new development of
the
The
work of the City’s Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (final report June,
2001) shows the need for good planning to meet capital needs, which generally
require large infusions of money to implement. Citizens who worked long and
hard on that committee should feel a great sense of accomplishment that many of
their priority items have been completed or are currently under way.
A
new library, a new Children’s and Art Museum and improvements to Mt. Baker
Theatre and waterfront-related improvements are among the significant capital
needs facing the City. The first two could cost $40 million and the waterfront
costs are still undetermined. Additionally, public works projects such as
expansion of the wastewater treatment plant ($45 million), needed traffic
calming and bicycle/pedestrian street and trail improvements, and purchase of
park lands are some of the priorities. Some of these projects will be paid for
by user fees or dedicated funds, but the total cost could exceed the City’s
bonding capacity of $137 million. Financial markets will determine the interest
rates, since they will judge the City’s ability to repay its bonded debt.
My back of the envelope has the total Capital needs at $252
million. You’ll note that I added in funds for land acquisition and storm water
fixes in
Medic 1 facility and upgrades: $500,000.
Police Headquarters Phase II: $10,000,000.
Parks (acquisitions and improvements): $27,000,000.
Library (main and improvements to existing
Public Works Streets Six Year Plan minus waterfront
expenditures: $35,000,000
Public Works Water: $60,000,000 Note – This cost includes the treatment plant expansion. I will propose a broader
Nooksack Diversion: $10,000,000. Note – this is currently unfunded yet can b e funded by grant programs.
Public Works Wastewater: $68,000,000 Note - This includes Treatment Plant construction and expansion at
$45,000,000
Public Works Stormwater:
$10,000,000. Note – currently the city
has just $300,000 planned for stormwater projects in
the
Public Works Facilities: $300,000
Public Works Operations: $2,000,000
By how much
would your list exceed the borrowing capacity of the COB?
It should not be assumed that the entire list would require
borrowing. I would advocate working with the community to set priorities,
aggressively seeking other funds and grants and then following a pay-as-you-go
system, as much as is practical. Projects that may require borrowing would be
the police headquarters ($10,000,000), library ($32,000,000), waste water
treatment plant ($45,000,000), water treatment plant expansion ($10,000,000).
The City debt capacity is approximately $103,000,000.
Current debt is $33,000,000. Hence the capacity is approximately $70,000,000
more.
Significant portions of the above projects should be paid for
via existing revenue streams and grants and in the case of the library, a bond
approved by
At what
point would the amount borrowed lead to higher interest rates?
I do not believe that the amount borrowed will necessarily
have a bright line trigger for higher interest rates. The structure of how
bonds will be paid back and with what funding source is critical. For example,
the waste water treatment plant is likely a one time big expense but will be
paid over a long period with waste water utility funds. There will not be a lot
of competition for that fund and it’s a fairly certain pay back. However,
street fund projects or park projects may be higher risk as the revenue streams
for those funds have greater variability.
Obligating the city to an additional $200,000,000 to
$300,000,000 for facilities on the waterfront is potentially very risky as the
means of paying for high cost items come from revenue sources that have much
lower certainty and may be needed for other basic capital facilities.
What would
be your priorities?
Watershed land acquisition, the water treatment plant and
waste water plant.
Obvious
capital needs for
There
are also other revenue mechanisms:
Revenue bonds, such as guaranteed through utility payments, are one option. New or increased streams of general revenues,
such as mitigation fees, can increase capacity.
Regardless, there are more demands than revenues. Prioritization is paramount. I’ll work with everyone—citizens, elected
officials, property owners, businesses—to establish priorities which work for
The
key to addressing these needs goes beyond
The city of Bellingham has a non voted debt capacity of
$103,029,728 of that non voted capacity the City has used $32,802,613 leaving a
balance of $70,227,115 available.
9.
Redevelopment of the Waterfront:
Will the economic benefit exceed the cost for the average
There
remain question marks as to whether public infusions of taxpayer money will be
recovered in taxes generated from developing the waterfront. We don’t know yet. The way we find out is through open and
honest processes that address these important questions. The Mayor must ride herd on the process and
make sure those answers are arrived at in daylight in a very public
process.
The
impact to adjacent neighborhoods could be numerous; noise, traffic, air pollution
from the demolition of the old site, dump trucks exiting the site to name but a
few. It is hoped that a well developed
waterfront will, over time, be an exciting amenity to the neighbors but in the
short term there will be annoyances and bother.
The next Mayor must be a sheriff and ensure that these disturbances are
minimized to the fullest extent practicable
I
believe the value of our waterfront is greater than we dare to dream. Its redevelopment will create new wealth for
this community, and not just for the waterfront. Downtown, Old Town, the Cultural District,
and in fact, every adjacent neighborhood will become more valuable because of
the new building, businesses, jobs and homes that will be created.
This
does not mean that open space must be sacrificed. In fact, the better job we do insuring the
livability, usability and beauty of what we build, the more valuable it will
be. We have been blessed with a blank
slate from which to create anything we dare to imagine. I believe we must be bold. We are smart, committed people, if we commit,
we can accomplish something great.
How
we move people in and out of this new area is critical to the success of the
waterfront and downtown, and to the impact felt by the surrounding neighborhoods. We are fortunate that all three of our
transportation systems pass through the middle of town. The transit hub is located there. Our trails all end at the edges of the
downtown and our street grid passes through it.
Mass
transit is working. With some
imagination we can hub the trail system in the downtown by transitioning the
trails to dedicated corridors not used by cars, perhaps by using some of the
alleys. Already the trail from
Automobile
traffic will require more imagination to create a better way to get to and from
I-5, into to the Downtown and Waterfront.
We do not, and should not, allow every new street to be built just for
cars. If we imagine easy access, with
parking hidden in and around the Downtown we then can create streets that are
just for people, bicycles and small transit shuttles.
It
will take the mix of these separate transportation systems working together to
meet the demands and challenges of creating a green and modern life. Our efforts and focus should be to design a
clean and easy way to use city center and waterfront. Easy for busy working families, easy for us
aging baby boomers, easy for people with limited mobility, easy for the new
growing population of residents, easy for everybody.
It
is too early to determine the costs vs. benefits for
As Mayor I would work with the City
departments and the Port to ensure that the neighborhoods have early and
continuous involvement in the development of New Whatcom. Master planning the
area, combined with active neighborhood involvement in the pre-development
process, will assure discussion of neighbors’ concerns such as noise, light,
view, access to the water and water-related activities, and the smooth flow of
people to and from the New Whatcom site.
Will the
economic benefit exceed the cost for the average
For the redevelopment to make
I generally don’t favor more studies but for the waterfront,
given the size of the investments and the assumptions that underlay the
project, I think an independent economic study is called for. That study should
seek to answer such questions as these:
what are the best economic and social uses for this land? How should
investments and profits be shared?
What will the impact of this redevelopment be on the adjacent neighborhoods and how would you go about minimizing them?
I think under the current plan, with the city agreeing to invest
more than $200 million, the impacts go well beyond the simple traffic impacts
to adjacent neighborhoods. If redevelopment proposals require large investments
over 20 or more years, those investments and commitments will have impacts
throughout the city. Clearly there will be economic benefits for some and
hopefully many. A well planned waterfront may have a great positive impact on
many peoples’ daily lives, but if revenue sources are severely tapped, there
will be an inability to move forward on projects where people live throughout
the city.
Redevelopment
must follow the waterfront cleanup efforts at the Georgia Pacific site. The key question is: ‘Who benefits from the
redeveloped site?’ Clearly the proposed
rules exempting developers from impact or mitigation fees are untenable—except
to some developers. Additionally, why
not use this opportunity to reach out to our fishing community, and more fully
integrate fishing into our waterfront? This is an extraordinary opportunity to
create meaningful public space for our City and region, and we must use the
opportunity wisely.
We
should recognize the benefits of providing more—rather than less—public space,
as the larger ‘front porch’ creates a wider swath of improved, neighboring
commercial sites. In other aspects,
impacts on proximate neighborhoods will be mixed. For example, few neighbors would advocate for
the superfund site as preferable to a park or mixed-use development of park,
marina, and buildings. However, there
will be negatives, too. Traffic, in
particular, is a problem. We must build
here, as we need to do everywhere in the City, to prioritize the movement of
people over the movement of cars.
Transit, bike and pedestrian options need to be intrinsic to design, as
essential pieces—along with autos—of our transportation system.
Redeveloping the waterfront will not occur overnight. The City has spent money to spur development
in our downtown; this “priming the pump” was successful. We will need to invest money on the
waterfront. As our redevelopment plan is
developed we have to ensure that investment pays dividends commensurate to the
cost.
Recreation:
10.
Parks, Trails, and Open Space.
Besides the dedicated
funding of the Greenways III levy, how would you suggest the City balance its
parks, trails, and open space system so that north
Yes, north
I believe that the northern parts of
The Greenways program has been hugely successful and has
proven to be a popular priority for Bellingham Voters. My wife, Taimi and
I participated vigorously in the Beyond Greenways Campaign, one of the results
of which was purchase of the Fairhaven Village Green property for use as a
public park. As I stated in my answer about Waterfront Development, our trail system
is developing into a significant third transportation system for the city and
as such it should extend everywhere.
Acquiring and developing
parks, trails and open space in underserved north
As a City we have not
ensured that these important amenities are provided as development in the north
has taken place. If elected Mayor, I would direct that Parks, Planning and
Public Works coordinate with both neighbors and developers at the early,
conceptual stages of projects to ensure that new developments have adequate
parks, trails and open space. In
particular, I would direct that the Planning, Parks and Public Works explore
the concept of a master plan for north
In addition to a need to distribute Greenways funds fairly
throughout the city, the north end of the City would benefit from localized
park impact fees so that development impacts on local parks will be addressed.
In addition, developers should be allowed and encouraged to dedicate open space
and public park land for a broader more localized benefit.
Is this a
priority issue for you?
This is a simple issue that calls for clear leadership: fair
distribution of parks will happen when I’m mayor.
Raising a family in the
The under allocation of parks for the northern parts of
Over time the northern areas currently inadequately provided for
would gain balance. In addition, such a
look would enable development of a completion of a meaningful parks system,
including interconnected trails and wildlife habitat. This examination would also look at how we
might partner more effectively to provide parks, open space, and recreation for
As the Meridian/Cordata area is infilled the City must ensure that a system of parks and
trails are part of that development. A
system of parks and trails are essential to all
Emergency Response:
11.
Utility lines.
Our neighborhoods
have large industrial high-pressure gas pipelines and high voltage power lines
running through residential areas. There
are houses connected directly to the gas lines, still at high pressure. These were installed to service industries in
the area. They pose tremendous danger in
case of earthquake. The Cascade Natural
Gas franchise agreement will be renegotiated for a new term during your tenure
as Mayor. PSE's
agreement can be reopened after January 31, 2013. What should new agreements with any utility
company provide for to protect our neighborhoods? How important is this issue to you? Are you prepared to ask these companies to
reopen the contracts now to provide safe service?
This is a tremendously important issue. New agreements should have a requirement that Cities are notified of compliance with State and Federal pipeline safety laws and provide notices of inspection reports. There should also be a requirement that these agreements provide for adequate liability insurance. Many old agreements called for very minimal insurance. The Mayor should oversee the very best emergency management system that anticipates high level response in case of earthquake.
One
of the lessons I learned from my participation in the NOPE Campaign in 1990
that successfully stopped a new High Voltage power corridor from slicing
through Whatcom county is that the new priorities and realities of our city
often conflict with our past. As
quickly as is financially prudent, dangerous conditions should be
rectified. Good leadership seeks to
maintain positive working relationships with all of the companies to which the
City has granted franchises. As Mayor I
will take the responsibility of advocacy for the city and it’s citizens
seriously and in any negotiation fiercely seek to support the cities self
interest first.
I
have learned in the over 20 years of negotiating contracts with many different
businesses in this community, that having an open and honest relationship with companies
you work with, and always seeking a win/win outcome is the best negotiating
position you can create. As Mayor I seek
to meet with each company and build a strong relationship and open
communication. It is in our mutual
interest that homes, families and neighborhoods are safe.
PSE
has already come to the city with an interesting offer to partner in a program
to bury the utilities lines in the downtown and eliminate all of the overhead
lines clutter. This is an offer that
bears consideration and is an example that a franchise renewal is not the only
time that negotiations will take place.
We must build good relationships and be always ready to negotiate
effectively.
As
one of the City officials who handled the aftermath of the Whatcom Creek
explosion and fire in 1999, I am acutely aware of the need to negotiate with
utility companies to assure safe transmission and delivery of their products. I
have talked with concerned neighbors and would, as Mayor, have the risks
analyzed and be proactive in setting up meetings with both Cascade Natural Gas
and Puget Sound Energy where neighbors and City staff can raise their concerns.
Transmission
lines and pipelines are everyday realities that we all depend on in our daily
living; but we need to take prudent and reasonable steps to reduce risks and
avoid any future harm they could cause.
Identifying and protecting major utility corridors should be
a fundamental part of planning efforts.
There are a variety of approaches that can be pursued to
ensure gas lines are safe. Initially, I believe creating a gas line utility
corridor would be the preferred approach. If this is not an option (I would
need to be convinced) other requirements on operation, testing and pipe types
and valves should all be part of any franchise agreement. We are fortunate in
that we have the Pipeline Safety Trust in
How
important is this issue to you?
Gas pipeline routes have been a priority for me as a County
Council member. I acted as the Council’s lead in negotiating with Williams
Pipeline Northern Tier proposal across the northern portion of the County and
took a lead with the Orca Pipeline proposal that was proposed as a north-south
line east of
Are you prepared to ask these companies to reopen the contracts now to provide safe service?
Yes, when we work through our
neighborhood plans, utilities are an important component. If there should be
changes, utility companies should be involved as early as possible.
Allowing
the installation of above-ground high voltage lines was a serious misstep by
the City. While it met with favor from
the developer, it exposes residents to potentially catastrophic failure
risks. Burial of these should not wait
for the PSE repermitting period in 2013, but be
negotiated immediately. Similarly, the
CNG high pressure gas lines with direct connections to residences need to be
mitigated as soon as possible, in advance of formal negotiating
timeframes. Future agreements with
utilities should include standards for utility treatment in residential areas.
In
addition, weather volatility is expected to increase as one of the unfortunate
by-products of global warming. This
year’s numerous storm events provide some measure of illustration of our
utilities’ current vulnerability. As
Mayor, I will initiate a program of coordinated utility work to bury all
utility lines over time. Utilities
companies will be asked to participate in a program to bury above-ground lines
as road and water projects offer opportunities to do so affordably, similar to
the pavement restriping program which has resulted in
our extensive bike lane system.
Safety
is a paramount concern of government, and we need to work now to create a safer
and more reliable utility system.
We learned how important pipelines are when we lost three
young lives in the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
I believe it is essential to correct any unsafe condition at the first
opportunity.
Personnel Management:
12.
Finance Director Role.
What is the role you see of an
appointed Finance Director in decisions related to the large financial impacts
of the
The
role of the Finance Director in that specific capacity should be to provide
accurate information and advice to the Mayor and Council as needed and
requested. Indeed, that is one of the
primary roles of the Finance Director.
Our present Finance Director, Therese Holm has done an
excellent job and serves, I believe, as the model for what we should seek from
the candidates that will apply for the new appointed position. Because this person will be the first to fill
the appointed position of Finance Director it is critical to the financial
accreditation of the City and political credibility of the administration that
they perform their duties with the highest ethical and fiduciary
standards. As Mayor, I will have the
opportunity to review the finalists for this position and these are the
standards I will look for and the performance I will expect.
As a manager of many years, I have hired dozens of employees
in my line of work, and assisted non-profits in the hiring of staff and
directors. The next mayor needs to have
the experience and qualifications to use objective and rational criteria in
hiring and appointments. They must not
be beholden to political parties, special interests or personal friends.
The
role of an appointed Finance Director would be to continue the highly
professional approach exhibited by Therese Holm, the City’s current Finance
Director. Working as part of a team, the Finance Director would be very
involved in all key financial decisions, explaining the financial realities
impacting each issue and offering her best professional opinion on the
financial options that would best meet the City’s long term needs.
The Finance Director will need to be able to present various
financial approach alternatives in a neutral manner and be ready and willing to
point out the consequences of any and all financial approaches not only for the
funding of a specific project area but the impacts to various city funds and
bonding capacity.
Both the Waterfront and the watershed pose significant
financial forecasting challenges. In the
former, clean-up and development costs are both vague, in large part due to the
uncertainties around current conditions and what the preferred options
are. The watershed faces similar
complexities, as even the ‘how’ of cleaning up phosphorus is murky, and the
tools to address the pollution, both from a policy and a technical perspective,
are in the formative stage.
The Finance Director’s role—whether elected (currently) or
appointed (beginning with the next Mayor)—in decisions related to the large
financial impacts of the Lake Whatcom watershed and the waterfront
redevelopment is two-fold: First, to
ensure the financial integrity and viability of proposed decisions regarding
the Lake Whatcom Watershed and the New Whatcom redevelopment; and Second, to
offer insights into the menu of financing mechanisms which might be used to
fund these needs.
It is critical that the Finance Director have the autonomy
to speak her or his mind regarding all funding issues, bringing understanding
of complex funding issues to the Mayor, the Council, and the citizens of
The role of finance director is responsible for the
financial stewardship of the monetary resources of the city. It is vital that the finance director
understand and be able to advise the Mayor and City Council about the impacts
of any financial decisions.
13. Advisory Committees.
What skill set and geographic balance do you look for as a Mayor in the makeup of the Planning Commission and other advisory boards? Does it concern you that all current members of the Commission live south of Whatcom Creek?
Balance is a requirement; geographic balance and variety of
experiences and backgrounds amongst the members. Different perspectives that reflect the
diverse makeup of our citizens should be reflected on our boards and advisory
commissions so the council members appreciate the full spectrum of viewpoints
that exist in our community. I have learned
a lesson on the County Council. When I
first got elected we had a very conservative planning commission that was well
known as such. Over time the left
leaning majority on our council filled up vacancies with more liberal minded
commission members. We went from
primarily all one viewpoint to primarily all another. All of one or all of another is a mistake. I
won’t support that again. Balance and a
variety of viewpoints should rule the day so that healthy debate and proper
questioning of alternatives occurs.
So, of course, all commission members residing in one
general area of town is a mistake and should be corrected as new vacancies open
up.
I learned a long time ago the more diverse the ingredients,
the more interesting and productive is the outcome. On the many non-profit boards on which I
have had the opportunity to serve, I have always advocated for diversity in
opinion, ideas and background.
In does concern me
that none of the planning commissioners come from north of Whatcom Creek. The make-up many the city advisory boards
have tended to leave out some of the voices and opinions in our community. Our small business community feels
particularly overlooked. This is wrong,
and as mayor I would work to make sure these advisory boards represent advice
from all parts of our community.
As Mayor, my goal will be to name the best, most
highly-qualified citizens available to our advisory boards and commissions.
With that goal in mind, I will strive for broad representation in my
appointments, considering applicants from all parts of the City. Board
preparation and meetings can take significant time and effort so we must
attract and retain volunteers who are willing and able to commit the time and
effort necessary to serve as active and productive members.
Members of the Planning Commission must be able
to carefully review complicated, detailed proposals and materials, communicate
effectively with Planning staff, listen to and fairly consider the input of all
stakeholders and make reasoned recommendations based on the record and on
thorough knowledge and understanding of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
There should be a good balance of geography, gender and
background on our advisory boards. Given that no women are currently running
for mayor, it’s clear we need to work harder to recruit women for advisory
boards. As for skill sets: Open minded,
demonstrated ability to be engaged in the community, ability to ask thoughtful
questions and bring new ideas forward, and civility and decorum skills even
when under criticism.
Yes. It is important to have Planning Commissioners from a
variety of areas around the city and from a variety
of perspectives. I’d be interested in a policy that requires at least one Commissioner
from each of the City’s wards.
The makeup of advisory boards is critical to how well they
function. In the case of some bodies—the
Bicycle Advisory Committee, for example—a narrower focus might call for a limited
scope in the participants. For bodies
such as the Planning Commission, however, diversity of experience and geography
are almost essential.
Similarly, it is important to have diverse backgrounds on
these bodies. The perspective of a
retiree is different from that of a working parent; a professional may have
differing priorities from a blue-collar worker, while a college student may
feel differently than both. We speak of
honoring the richness and diversity in our community; putting those words into
action requires enlisting a broad array of backgrounds and experiences, and
welcoming the fact that this may, at times, challenge our own perspective. A community is made up of all its parts, and
all should have a voice.
The primary skills required as a member of the Planning
Commission is an understanding of land use and zoning issues. It is also necessary to have a grasp of the
importance of individual neighborhood character and the vision of the direction