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 communit