Edmonds Forum

Promoting myself to win political office is outside my experience. Asking for contributions. Asking for help with my campaign. Getting help with my campaign and integrating others’ ideas into how best to approach the voters. I find myself focusing on campaign strategy, when I’d rather focus on why I’m running for office.

I’m running for office because I have observed poor stewardship of our tax-payer dollars. I’m running for office because I have observed an adversarial relationship between Council Members, between the Mayor’s Office and Council Members, between citizens and elected officials, between staff and citizens, between staff and Council Members, and (most unfortunately) between citizen and citizen. I am running for office because I have observed that some elected officials think in terms of their own short-term political gain, rather than the long-term stewardship of Edmonds resources and its future economic health.

I am running for office because the finger-pointing and blame game is getting us nowhere. We have well-informed citizens in Edmonds. We have numerous citizens who volunteer their time on the many citizen committees and organizations for the benefit of Edmonds. We have many citizens who dedicate precious time researching issues of importance for our city. All of these voices should be considered when decisions are made about Edmonds. All input must be encouraged, respected, and valued.

I am running for office because I believe that Council Members should be politicians second, and stewards, first. By politicians, I mean, those who, rather than governing, always seem to be campaigning for the next election. By stewards, I mean those who work for the betterment of our city, not just for today, but for future generations.

Stewardship starts with striping concealment from all government activities. If everything is done in the best interests of tax-paying citizens, then there is no reason that we can’t monitor governance as if there were a ticker tape. We have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from an open government process.

Stewardship continues with efficiency in the use of tax-payers’ money. Yes, if you want a service it must be paid for, but let’s make sure we’re getting our money’s worth. There should be clear, accessible budget reports that can be easily understood by anyone who has interest in reviewing them. Citizens will be better equipped to make decisions about taxing themselves, and about how those tax dollars are spent.

Stewardship includes transparency in all operations of the city. We should be able to access the record of all actions taken on behalf of the citizens of Edmonds, by all of the departments of the city. While the mayor is responsible for oversight of staff, every citizen should have easy access to city operations. Cooperation and collaboration will be fostered when we can all see the inner workings of our government.

Stewardship recognizes that the quality of life in Edmonds is best when all generations can afford to live here — when young families, young adults, and older adults all have available housing appropriate to their current situation. We have many neighborhoods, and they don’t have to look exactly the same.

Stewardship means that Edmonds needs a balance of housing, parks, businesses, and entertainment. To accomplish that we need to guide our City departments to suppress poor development and foster superior development.

(with Gary Bloom)

In Franz Kafka’s The Castle, the protagonist (known as “K”) is summoned by authorities (a mysterious bureaucracy) to work as a land surveyor, but on his arrival, finds that he has not been hired. K spends most of the novel attempting to communicate with his contact in the bureaucracy and unsuccessfully trying to find his way into the bureaucracy’s office (the Castle). In The Castle, no one is evil; K is even accommodated to a degree by being given a different job. The bureaucratic opacity is just a fact of life, accepted — and defended — by the townspeople.

My take-away from the novel is that the growth of bureaucracy and opacity in government doesn’t need to stem from a big, evil plot, and doesn’t need to present itself in a big (or small) evil manner. It usually just evolves, incrementally, while we are busy working at our jobs and raising our children — and by we I mean government employees as well as citizens.

A large element of bureaucracy stems from our natural tribalism, where we (i.e., humans) identify ourselves as belonging to groups: Red Sox and Yankees’s fans; Northern Californians and Southern Californians; British and Germans; Hindus and Buddhists; or, in our case, city employees and citizens. We don’t need to work at this us/them separation, it just happens.

To keep that natural separation at bay, (and subsequent bureaucracy and opacity) requires not just resistance, but conscious effort. Rather than try to stop opacity, it is better to create practices of transparency. How to do that? Currently, the City has private records — human-resource related, and some legal issues. Most everything else are public records, which are available by request. The problem of records available by request is that you need to know what you’re looking for to get at them — they’re public, but camouflaged. Where’s Waldo is a fun game for little kids, but a lousy design for public records.

Here’s how you do transparency for public records: make the City’s file cabinet a website — not just any website, but a wiki website, which is designed for easy search. What’s a wiki? I bet you use this one often. The software used by Wikipedia.org is free, easy to install, and even has tools to make it easier to use or migrate to, such as a Microsoft Word Doc-to-MediaWiki exporter.

In any case, the above is not meant to be a blueprint, but a guideline. The important element is not just talking about transparency, but creating tools to make it the default. So, how will we know when our City’s information is sufficiently transparent? Easy: when City staff are using the same source to get their information as the citizens of Edmonds.

Why is this important? The focus on transparency has been primarily on issues of the City budget, and for good reason. But transparency goes beyond finances. In a totalitarian government, the government monitors the people. There’s a book about that. In a democracy, citizens monitor the government — and to do so, is good practice for citizenship, even when it’s local government. Why shouldn’t Edmonds be a model to emulate?

For more on transparency in government: Open Government Initiative.

What are the duties of the City Council (Council), and what are the duties of the Mayor?

The Council’s job is to provide direction by considering, debating, and passing ordinances and the comprehensive plan and its elements, for the city. The Mayor’s job is to manage our City’s staff for quality and efficiency of services.

Is it ever appropriate for the Council to oversee the Mayor’s responsibilities?

If the Mayor asks the Council for a tax levy, then the Council should question whether our citizens’ tax money is being spent most efficiently. By asking for an increase in taxes, the Mayor is stating that we do not have sufficient revenue to provide quality services to the citizens of Edmonds. He is also stating that expenses — the spending of the citizens of Edmonds’ money — are being handled as efficiently as possible. Before the Council asks the citizens of Edmonds to give the Mayor more money to spend on staff and contractors, the Mayor should have to give sufficient evidence that he or she is not spending more than necessary.

Do you, as a candidate for City Council, believe that the Mayor is not spending citizens’ money as efficiently as possible?

The current Mayor inherited a difficult situation. The economic downturn has resulted in less of Edmonds citizens’ money — primarily in the form of sales and property taxes — being collected by the City Government. There is less revenue to pay staff and contractors for services. At the same time, not enough has been done to reign in expenses in response to the economic downturn. In hard times, it’s not too much to ask those who are not just getting by to sacrifice a bit. At this time, should we be asking for more citizens’ money to spend on raises for current City staff?

The Mayor, the candidate for Mayor, and some current Council members have been defending City employees. They’re saying that City staff is doing a great job. You disagree?

Completely irrelevant. No one’s attacking the quality and work of City staff. I have concerns and questions about the efficiency of how City staff and contractors are being used. With far less development going on in Edmonds, why have staffing levels in Development Services (responsible for planning, code enforcement, and building), for example, remained unchanged? Why is staff time being used to process the ESC associates contract rezone application that asks for heights on an earthquake liquefaction zone which, by our own code, cannot be built?

Again, the quality and efficiency of staff is the Mayor’s responsibilty. But when the Mayor asks for more money from Edmonds citizens’, that is, asks the Council to create a tax levy, then it’s the Council’s responsibility to question that need.

Edmonds citizens who have an interest in the future of our city are aware of the debate about heights. Sound bites boil the dispute down to keeping the small-town feel versus building an urban village at the waterfront — an urban village that would include a City Council exemption from current height limits. The rationale for this exemption stems from an expectation that the urban village would be our economic savior.

Much of the finger pointing and blame, by the proponents of the urban village, is directed at those who oppose increased heights at the waterfront. Whether a waterfront urban village, or similar mega-projects, would be our economic savior could be debated, endlessly. All I’ll say here is that, so far, mega projects — take Old Milltown, please — have been mega failures.

The reason I’m not going to debate whether an urban village on the property currently owned by the ESC Associates (Antique Mall) may not be our economic savior is that it’s never going to happen.

Why the Sunset Landing contract rezone is a fantasy solution

The ESC Associates application for a contract rezone is not a project proposal. This means that the design presented is only a proposal, as the ESC Associates do not plan to build themselves. If the requested rezone were approved by City Council, mixed-use buildings up to six stories high (two levels of parking, four levels retail and residential) would be allowed, and the assessed value of the property could go up significantly.

A more important (and little-known) fact is that the ESC Associates property is located on an earthquake liquefaction zone. This was discovered in a search of the contract-rezone chart by a citizen of Edmonds. I obtained a copy of the document, “Elements of the Environment – Sunset Landing Analysis/Initial Scoping Document,” from that citizen. I could not find the document in the application materials posted on the city’s website. In this document it states:

“Site is within a mapped seismic hazard area as a high liquefaction hazard.
Restricted uses listed in ECDC 23.80.040.B”

The following is excerpted from the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.80.040.B:

B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;
2. Additions to existing single-story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].

So, according to our own city code, the contract rezone application for 513,348 square feet of parking, retail, and residential could not be allowed. Yet, the original application was filed in July of 2009, and the application process continues to this day. My question is, why is Development Services spending time on an application that our code could not allow?

For the sake of argument, suppose that this contract rezone is approved by Development Services, by the Planning Board and by City Council. Do we really think that a developer is going to purchase this property at any price? From what I’ve been told, you can float two stories on a seismic liquefaction zone and make it earthquake safe. In order to build additional stories, the developer would have to go down to the bearing ground and set the buildings on pilings. This is an extremely expensive proposition. What developer in their right mind would take this on with an expectation that it would pencil out?

In short, the idea of an urban village on that property is a fantasy solution, and it’s being discussed and debated to the exclusion of real solutions.

That this property is “within a seismic hazard area as a high liquefaction hazard” is a prime example of lack of transparency in our city government. It should be common knowledge. This critical piece of information should be used to inform our government officials’ decision making about the future of this property. Instead, the information is tucked within the many pages of the application for the contract rezone, and the fantasy that we could have had a thriving urban village, if only…you fill in the rest…is used in the finger-pointing political blame game. For the sake of our future economic health, let’s move on.

My comment#3 on myedmondsnews.com

Accountability — Budgets need to be complicated only if their purpose is to obscure rather than explain.

While it is helpful to have the yearly budget posted on line, that is not sufficient to keep citizens informed as to how their money is spent. Monthly reports, with revenue and expenditures, should be available on the Edmonds website. Audits of Edmonds accounting should also be posted, in their entirety, for citizens to review.

Responsibility — The ability to respond to the ideas and interests of citizens.

I have been actively involved in Edmonds politics since 2004. I have chosen to do the research necessary in order to make informed comments at City Council and other meetings and have learned first-hand how time-consuming that can be. I am aware that not everyone is comfortable speaking in front of groups, and not everyone is available to attend Council, Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, Port, and other city of Edmonds meetings. I would like to make available participation by citizens, when it’s convenient for them rather than just when it’s convenient for elected officials, or for those who have time (or interest) to show up for meetings. I’d like to not just make accessing information on the city website more convenient, but to make user involvement, possible.

Civility — The understanding that government officials, elected and appointed, are civil servants, not our bosses.

Let’s stop talking about the Mayor as CEO. The Mayor is not a CEO, but a business manager, a manager of how to best allocate money in service of the citizens’ interests. Let’s expect our elected and appointed officials to treat Edmonds residents as their employer rather than as their subjects. Elected officials, and appointed officials (including all city hires), as long as they’re not being abused, should always be polite, responsive, and helpful.

Transparency

I believe that the means to accomplish accountability, responsibility, and civility starts with transparency. There are no issues of national security, nor are there other excuses (save for the occasional lawsuit), that could serve as a reason for secrecy in our city government. Transparency translates to respect for our citizens’ money. Government has no right to tax you, while obscuring how your money is spent.

I want citizens to be able to view public records (notice, they’re called public records) easily, either by requesting printouts, or on the city website. Public records should be easy to find, with effort on Edmonds’s part to make them easily searchable. Records should be organized to be easily discoverable — that is, to find information even when you’re not sure how to look for it.

I want to create an atmosphere of partnership with the citizens, and at the same time, I understand that it’s the City government’s job to make sure things get done. So, there will be space for those who want to be more involved, while those too busy with other aspects of their lives will continue to have their interests represented.

There is a well-developed document on implementing transparency in government: I will highlight these ideas over time, on EdmondsForum.com, or you can go to the source at Open Government Initiative.

I have repeatedly heard it said that “We do not have an expenses problem, we have a revenue problem”. I have also heard that the operation of the City of Edmonds is lean with no room for cuts in the budget. This is the justification that the Mayor, and some council members, have used in pushing for a levy.

The statement “We do not have an expenses problem, we have a revenue problem” is not true. We have a revenue problem AND we have an expenses problem.

An article in the March 31, 2011 Seattle Times stated the following:
“Last year, to close the $67 million shortfall in the $895 million budget, the city [of Seattle] eliminated about 300 positions, reduced hours at community centers, cut park maintenance, raised some fees and won wage concessions from unions (emphasis mine).”

And, in a Times article on April 1, 2011:
“Ferry workers, after forfeiting $18.3 million in raises the past two years, will accept a 3 percent PAY CUT for the next two. They’ll also be paid less for overtime and travel time.”

These are only two examples of concessions being made by public employees in response to budget crises facing our entire state, and nation. And yet in 2009, ALL Edmonds employees received a COLA of 5.8%. It is my understanding that they also received COLA increases in 2010 and in 2011. As of 2007, the average salary of our 45 non-represented employees was $87,500 a year compared to $55,000 average Edmonds HOUSEHOLD income. It has been estimated that the average pay for those 45 employees is now over $90,000 a year.

As to staffing levels, in 2002, the Development Services Department processed a high of 188 land use applications. Land use applications must be processed in 120 days, and a chart of adherence to the processing time must be posted on the city website. In 2009, only 56 land use applications were processed, less than 1/3 of those processed in 2002. The figures for land use applications in 2010 are not yet posted on the city website, but new construction expenses in 2010 were 1/4 of the expenses in 2009.

The Development Services Department continues to be staffed at 2002 levels, despite the dramatic decrease in land use applications, which are likely the most complicated applications processed by that department.

(A side note on transparency, most of this information is not available on the city website. The information that is available on land use applications is not up to date.)

I urge you to immediately stop trying to figure out how to manipulate the citizens of Edmonds into voting for a levy and INSTEAD focus your attention on addressing these issues. Using a levy to solve our expenses problem is like using a bandaid to treat internal bleeding.

Until compensation and staffing are addressed, I will vote no on ANY levy that is put forth to the voters.

I am here tonight to make one request of Council. I am asking that you investigate the delay publishing of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and hold those responsible, accountable.

You have in your packet my presentation to the hearing examiner regarding Development Application of Thuesen Custom Homes, File #S-05 /SD-05-8, received by the city on March 15, 2006. As you can see in that presentation, among other things, I reference the delay publishing of the critical areas ordinance. To refresh your memories, the new CAO was passed by council on November 23, 2004, but was not published until February 10, 2005, 79 days later. The development application, referenced, was submitted on January 18, 2005.

At the time of my presentation I, and my neighbors, were aware of the delay in publishing the CAO, but were not aware that the delay publishing did not delay the effective date of the ordinance. It’s reasonable to assume that citizens of Edmonds would not understand this legal point. My question to you is, why did our city attorney, Scott Snyder, who co-signed the ordinance with the former mayor, not know that the delay publishing did not delay the effective date of the ordinance?

Publishing an ordinance is a ministerial duty only. A delay in publishing an ordinance cannot legally delay the effective date of the ordinance. In this case, the ordinance was passed by council on November 23, 2004 and became effective in December of 2004, despite the fact that the ordinance was not published until February of 2005. Council president Bernheim has been forwarded detailed research on case law which supports this conclusion.

The reason this is so important is that the developer was allowed to vest under the old CAO. If Mr. Snyder had simply informed staff that the CAO was in effect PRIOR TO Mr. Thuesen’s application date of January 18, 2005, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in litigation costs, staff time, and court costs could have been saved, and private citizens would have been spared the expense, time, and stress of the last five and a half years. In addition, a valuable resource would have been protected from the serious damage that it has sustained.

My family moved into our home near this wetland over 21 years ago. We witnessed a beautiful (approximately) 10,000-square foot-wetland that became a pond in the winter, and a home to numerous ducks, disappear into a haven, not for critters and native plants, but for noxious weeds. There is no pond in the winter. The wetland has been partially filled, cleared, and graded by the property owner.

For over five years, my neighbors and I have been involved in this stressful, contentious, legal mess that was the responsibility of the city. I am appealing to council, tonight, to finally, take the burden off of private citizens and investigate the delay publishing of the CAO. Those responsible MUST be held accountable.

My comments are made in reference to the presentations by Eric Thuesen and Ken Reidy scheduled for later in this meeting.

On October 25, 2005, almost four and a half years ago, I presented comments to City Council titled “Make developers ask permission, not forgiveness.” At that time I stated:

My neighbors and I are asking the Planning Department to require Thuesen Homes, Inc, which intends to develop on property which includes an isolated wetlands, to contact the Army Corps of Engineers, and then the State Department of Ecology, and obtain approval for the project before the Planning Department gives their approval. We wish to avoid an appeal — a lengthy, adversarial process involving the time and energy of private citizens, city government and, ultimately, of the City Council. If the Planning Department chooses to approve the project without the required Federal and State assessments, they will be forcing private citizens to do the Planning Department’s job.

My comments were printed in the Beacon, with response from Rob Chave, and are still posted on edmondsforum.com. At that time, Thuesen had not yet submitted his short-plat application.

After Thuesen submitted his application, John Pell of the Corps, assessed the property and determined it to be an isolated wetland and therefore not subject to Federal regulations. However, to this day, the DOE has never been allowed on the Thuesen property to complete an assessment. What followed was exactly what I predicted, a lengthy, adversarial, four and a half-year process, involving time from energy from both City staff and private citizens, money from private citizens, and an enormous amount of taxpayers’ dollars.

The city attorney, Scott Snyder, has been involved in this lengthy, adversarial process from the very beginning. The issue remains unresolved and approval for the short-plat application remains “preliminary” only. I, and others, have lost confidence in the city attorney’s representation of Edmonds throughout this process. We request that City Council immediately remove Scott Snyder from any further involvement in the Thuesen-Reidy case, AND open a full and complete investigation into his role in this short-plat application process.

In completing this investigation, you should pay particular attention to the Framework for Resolution, and all other issues that Ken Reidy discusses this evening. You should also note the settlement agreement, negotiated by Scott Snyder, under substantive terms 1 H. which states:

The City shall not take any independent, affirmative action that would be adverse to any permit or approval that Petitioners may apply for from any state or federal agency, provided that this term shall not operate to restrict the City from responding to any request for information from any state or federal agency or otherwise complying with any state law.

I admit to a limited understanding of legal jargon, but this seems to tie the City’s hands in enforcing its own Critical Areas ordinance regarding the wetland on Thuesen’s property. The question I would ask is, “is it legal to restrict the City from enforcing its’ own code?”

You should also pay close attention to the over 500 emails between Scott Snyder and Duanna Kolowskoski, Thuesen’s attorney, that are being provided to Ken Reidy following his public records request, and waiting for his review.

My second request should by now by obvious. I request that City Council contact the State Department of Ecology and request a complete and full investigation of the issuance of a Nationwide permit (NWP) allowing Thuesen to “fill” the wetland. John Pell reversed his earlier determination that the wetland was isolated and issued the NWP based upon verbal report from the property owner that a storm grate existed in the wetland connecting it to Federal waterways. There is no storm grate, nor any pipes, nor any documentation of such on City maps, nor any documentation of permits to install such on the Thuesen property.

In this investigation, particular attention should be paid to a timeline presented on June 1, 2006 by Richard Gifford, Thuesen’s attorney at that time:

12. Early January 2005. Numerous conversations between Mr. Thuesen and Planning staff verifying items”….etc, etc and “mutual recognition of Applicant’s desire and right to vest application and development proposal under old CA ordinance.

The old CA regulated wetlands 2500 feet and over. The new CA regulates wetlands 500 feet and over. The key point here is that Thuesen had numerous conversations with city staff regarding his “right to vest application under old CA.” Thuesen was allowed by city staff to vest under the old CA, but this was not because of his “right” to do so. In fact, this was a special privelege granted to a private citizen, which is not allowed by city code.

Further, I suggest that particular attention be paid to the delay in publishing the new Critical Areas ordinance. In my submission, dated March 15, 2006, to the hearing examiner, I reference inconsistencies in Thuesen’s application, one of which is the submission of letters dated November 20, 2004, by Thuesen, but dated received on January 18, 2005, the date of Thuesen’s application. In my submission, I state:

The November 20, 2004 date is interesting because it was before the City Council voted on November 23, 2004 to adopt the new Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance was passed by City Council on November 23, 2004, but for some reason did not go into effect until February 15, 2005. The new Critical Areas ordinance describes anything over 500 square feet as a wetland. The previous ordinance described anything over 2,500 square feet as a wetland.

And finally, I am requesting that City Council instruct city staff to immediately deem Thuesen’s short-plat application incomplete. This action should have been taken the moment that the City learned that the Reidy encroachment had not been identified in any of the LSA surveys presented to the City in the Thuesen application.

In submitting his short-plat application, Thuesen signed as follows:

The undersigned applicant, and his/her assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the COE harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.

This action would (1)immediately stop the bleeding of taxpayer dollars that have gone towards this short-plat application and (2) require Thuesen to resubmit his application, this time under the new Critical areas ordinance.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Mayor Haakenson,

I attended the public meeting at the Port last night, in which Mark Hinshaw and two other consultants outlined a framework for a plan for development of the Port properties. In this email I will address the process, not the content, of the meeting last night.

Edmonds citizens have very strong feelings about development on the Waterfront properties and, as you know, I am one of those citizens. Our elected representatives, as public servants, are charged with providing venues to allow all citizens to express their opinions. At the Port meeting last night, my comments were interrupted by an angry tirade from a member of the Planning Board. The moderator of the meeting, Bruce Faires, did nothing to stop the tirade and allow me to continue my comments. Instead, he joined with the other man in criticizing my input.

I have seen a similar process in City Council meetings. As Mayor, you set the tone for Council meetings, and the tone you set is adversarial. You regularly challenge citizen input at the meetings. It is my understanding that the three-minute comment period is for citizens to express their opinions on any issue “regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review,” however, you use your position of power to berate and belittle citizens and to support your own political agenda.

An example of this is when you asked Diane Buckshnis, following her input to council, if she was a CPA. This was clearly an attempt to discredit Diane’s input and a thinly veiled way for you to demonstrate your support for Strom Peterson. This abuse of your power as an elected official is especially hypocritical as you meticulously stop citizens who are commenting at Council from referencing, or even wearing labels, supporting candidates for office.

I have copied four citizens who were present at the meeting last night on this email. I’m certain that everyone who has been present at recent Council meetings can think of examples of your modeling of uncivil behavior that they have observed or been the target of. The result of the adversarial tone is that it is very difficult to muster the courage to get up in front of council and speak, even for someone as outspoken as I am. I find that I have to be emotionally and physically prepared to handle any abuse that might be forthcoming.

I am disheartened that this pattern of incivility has spread to the Planning Board and to the Port public meetings. I request that you and each Council Member do everything in your power to reverse this trend.

I had every intention of participating in the public hearing on the Sustainability Element of the comprehensive plan at Council tonight, however, after what happened last night, I choose not to subject myself to that level of stress on consecutive nights. I will send my comments on the plan in a separate email to Mayor and Council.

Regards,
Joan Bloom