Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail

This is a special post related to an ongoing project to purchase the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail.

In the 60's the Hall family purchased a large chunk of the shoreline between Sandpoint and Kootenai. The purchase was done shortly after installation of the Albeni Falls dam. Several years after the purchase, a large part of the properties had washed away prompting emergency action by the Army Corps of Engineers to protect the railroad tracks. Since that time, the Halls have owned a sliver of waterfront property that spans almost a mile of shoreline. For the last three decades, the Halls and various groups have debated the purchase of this property. There is a trail on the property and the adjoining railroad property which is used extensively by the public.

In early 2011, Dann Hall listed one of his properties for sale. Carrie Logan initially worked to purchase this property. After multiple discussions the City and Dann Hall were unable to agree on a purchase price.

I approached the Halls following the discussions and worked with Dann on a proposal to purchase the entirety of the Hall properties. This took several months and hundreds of hours. Ultimately, we were able to agree on a four-year purchase price of all the Hall properties for $1.6 million. The total land is almost one mile of shoreline.

After coming to an agreement on a potential deal, it was necessary to find the funding for the project. John Reuter was instrumental. At the same time as the Hall deal, the City of Sandpoint was going through budget discussions. Councilman Reuter worked to identify funds in the budget which could be used for the purchase. The deal requires $400,000 this year and each year thereafter for four years. However, I believe that Ponderay will pay the purchase price in the third year and Friends of the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail will pay the purchase price in the fourth year. Of note, the Friends group agreed to raise the money the same day that they became aware of the proposal. They are fantastic.

Councilman Reuter is incredibly effective at budgetary matters. Through no small feat and over many, many hours, he identified $400,000 that we could use this year for the purchase. We were able to include the purchase in the budget for this year.

Following Sandpoint's participation, I attended the Ponderay Council meeting to propose to them the purchase of the third year. It was a very long debate. Over the next two years, budget predictions show that Ponderay could save the money for the purchase. However, it will require sacrifices. After more than 30 minutes of discussion, the Ponderay City Council ultimately voted to make every effort to purchase the third year. The Council's decision was in no small part thanks to the dedicated support of the Friends' group.

To date, we are still working on nailing down the details on the purchase documents. It has been a very long process. Honestly, I am exhausted. However, I believe that this will be one of the most important projects in the future of Ponderay and Kootenai.

The Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail represents more than one mile of shoreline preserved for public use. It is equal to nearly all the other waterfront in the Sandpoint City limits.

The primary concern is the value of the properties and whether the price is fair. I believe that the price is fair considering the value and the opportunity that it represents. First the purchase price for Sandpoint is approximately $1,145 per front foot. Waterfront prices are between $2000 and $5000 per front foot. Secondly, the third and fourth year purchases are dramatically cheaper, averaging $193 per front foot.

In addition, these properties represent an incredible opportunity. Waterfront continues to be more limited. I remember a time growing up when there were countless places on private and public property to access the lake. With the increase of waterfront prices, there are fewer and fewer locations for the public to use the lake. This is only going to become worse. It has to with the cost of waterfront properties. Therefore, this represents the largest waterfront acquisition in the history of Ponderay and Sandpoint. This property might not be perfect but over time I am confident that it can be developed to provide public access to the lake. I believe that this is the most important project to come to the City of Sandpoint in the last three decades. It is comparable to the creation of the Sandpoint City Beach which was a public-private project spearheaded by the Lions Club. Similarly the Sandpoint City Beach at its inception was nothing more than a sand bar. It was filled in and over time has become the gem of Sandpoint. We have that same opportunity and I am excited at the possibility.


Articles on the Trail:

1. Daily Bee
2. Daily Bee
3. Spokesman-Review
4. Daily Bee
5. Daily Bee

August 2010 Council Mtg.

I was absent for this meeting. Of special importance at this meeting was the amendments to the urban renewal plan which I did not support.

As I have previously stated, the urban renewal is asking for broad discretion to conduct any project that they might deem appropriate. I believe that this is a mistake since they are using tax dollars for their projects. I believe that Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency ("SURA") and the City should agree on the scope and type of any projects that they are conducting. This is the only reasonable way for maintaining accountability over the public funds that the agency will be spending. It appears that I am the only person particularly concerned with this issue.

SURA's responses were particularly frustrating during this process. In a February 2010 letter, I suggested that SURA have the following specific priorities:

1. To create jobs;
2. To create quality workforce housing;
3. To guide future growth and development; and
4. To foster education.

In response, SURA's attorney stated that it was limited to spending its money on infrastructure. This was particularly frustrating because obviously, I wasn't proposing a social program - only that SURA judge its projects based on the above criteria. In a February 2010 response, I pointed out multiple Idaho urban renewal projects that have furthered the above-described goals.

UPDATE: Interestingly, in 2011 SURA gave a "grant" to the Downtown Sandpoint Business Association of $50,000 per year to be used for marketing. SURA has also funded a consultant to study how we can bring economic vitality to the downtown. I believe it is a one-year, $200,000 contract. How these projects square with the agency's earlier statement that they can only invest in infrastructure programs is beyond me.

While this is a fairly negative review of SURA, it is not meant to diminish their work. It is only to point out the lack of control which I believe borders on unconstitutional. SURA has done some amazing things in 2011 which include one of my very favorite projects - extending the Sand Creek Boardwalk. They have also built the Panida pier and rebuilt 2nd Avenue as the first Green Street in Idaho. So I am conflicted in that they intend well and have accomplished some great projects but lack the institutional controls that were meant to limit urban renewal ihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifn the event that something goes wrong.

July 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Sand Creek Arch. Whether to approve the concept and design of an archway over the Panida Alley.

Facts 1: The City of Sandpoint received a grant from the Idaho Transportation Department to improve the downtown area. The Sandpoint Arts Commission submitted proposals for an archway near the Panida and received approximately 7 submissions. Of those 7 submissions, the Sandpoint Arts Council chose a design proposed by Nelson Boren. The design uses recycled materials with a fish theme.

Conclusion 1: Public art is tricky. I like public art that is interactive, i.e. it can be moved, climbed on, etc. In this case, Nelson Boren is a very distinguished artist. I also really like the aspect of using recycled materials. I had concerns that the design which allowed the fish to "chime" in the wind would be loud. It appears that the fish can be detuned to avoid this situation if the chiming is obnoxious to downtown businesses. I approved the design because I believe that it will be an interested addition to our downtown and I like public art. The archway will cost the City nearly nothing because it will be paid for by the Idaho Transportation Department.

Issue 2: New commercial zoning.

Facts 2: The City of Sandpoint's commercial zoning has remained largely unchanged for the last twenty years. After a very long process, we considered new regulations for the commercial zones. The process that we used was exhaustive. The planning and zoning commission had approximately 8 meetings on the code sections. The Council had a workshop on the proposed changes which bored down into the details. So at this meeting we are really addressing only a few problem areas.

Conclusion 2: I'm happy with this zoning. I think that it is dramatically better than what we have in place. Attached is a copy of my letter to the Daily Bee regarding the changes.

The Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency

Urban Renewal in Idaho: Urban renewal essentially allows cities and counties to take tax dollars and devote them to economic development projects. This is done by taking an area, drawing a boundary around it and determining the initial taxing value. Every increase in value within that boundary causes more taxes to be generated. Those additional taxes over the initial amount are provided to the urban renewal agency. The urban renewal agency is then to accomplish projects that are approved by the city or county.

Within the City of Sandpoint, we have two districts. The "Northern District" surrounds the airport. The "Downtown District" encompasses the downtown and some of the surrounding areas. The Northern District was created with the idea of saving money to pave Great Northern Road. The Downtown District was created with the idea of re-doing streets and sidewalk in the downtown in order to revitalize our commercial area. The Downtown District has a very specific plan. The plan specifies which streets are to be completed and in what order.

The plans are similar to a contract between the urban renewal agency and the city. Urban renewal agencies are independent organizations. Therefore, they can do what they want. However, cities are given control over the urban renewal agencies by being able to approve the plan. That way the City knows that the tax dollars it is choosing to forego are being used for economic development purposes that further the interests of the city.

We've had some rough spots with our urban renewal. The Northern District hasn't had significant development within the last five years and therefore doesn't have a lot of funds to spend. Despite the plan, the Northern District chose to re-do some streets near Farmin school several year ago as a public image project. On the other hand, the Downtown District makes over $200,000 dollars a year and therefore has significant abilities.

In 2009 the City of Sandpoint cut a number of projects from the budget. Sandpoint's Urban Renewal Agency then decided to fund some of these projects including improvements to the City beach pilings and partial payment for upgrades to the police communications system. These projects were not part of the Downtown District's plan.

I'm a big supporter of urban renewal. I think that it is one of the most powerful tools available to municipalities. However, I believe that it should be used cautiously and carefully. When an urban renewal agency spends tax dollars on projects that weren't previously approved, it is a very serious problem. Urban renewal has now hired independent counsel and has taken many steps towards restoring my confidence.

Within the last six months, the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency has discussed amending its downtown plan to allow it to spend money on projects other than those originally considered. Since the plan amendments must be approved by the City Council, the Council and urban renewal need to effectively agree on how to use urban renewal monies and what projects to do.

Our urban renewal agency is composed of volunteers. They do an excellent job and stretch their dollars a long ways. For the past 5 years there has been almost no administrative overhead thanks for the board volunteering their services. The difficulty is that the urban renewal board holds a different perspective than the Council on budgeting and tax dollars. They don't see how we scrape for $30,000 a year to hire a new part-time assistant or buy a police car. They don't know that we cut officer training in order to save costs. They spend the money that we carefully dedicate for economic development.

My biggest fear in this process is that the urban renewal agency will undertake a very detailed and complex process to change the plan without talking to the City Council. Without a common vision, I would expect the plan amendments to be rejected by the City Council. This would be very discouraging. For that reason, I have been very vocal about what I want to see in a plan. I've tried to voice this opinion loudly and early in order to avoid a future conflict. This has drawn some criticism from the urban renewal agency but I think that it's resulted in a better result.

We had a joint workshop with the urban renewal board several months ago to consider their latest draft of the amended downtown plan. The plan was very broad. It basically allowed urban renewal to spend money any way that they choose. Because these are tax dollars and based upon some of their past spending decisions, I have real concerns with this approach. I want to know exactly how they are going to spend the money. For that reason, I said that I won't support the draft plan and requested a more specific plan with detailed, prioritized projects. Currently, the urban renewal has completed their draft version and I expect that the Council will take it up next month.

June 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether to approve the new Sandcreek gateway. ITD has allocated funds to the City of Sandpoint for improvements to the alleyway by the Panida theater.

Analysis 1: This is one of the greatest things about being on the City Council. When I have the opportunity to be a part of something that will change the City for the better. I hope that this is one of those. However, I'm cautious. Amazing public art can sometimes be elusive. There are so many great projects that I see which beautify their cities. However, sometimes you see spectacular failures.

Conclusion 1: We have been very lucky to attract a wonderful artist to design and build an archway near the alleyway by the Panida. The proposed design looks incredible. I'm optimistic. We voted to approve the design.

May 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: The new insurance contracts. Each year we approve new insurance contracts. This year the employees requested an increase in our insurance coverage.

Analysis 1: Insurance rates continue to go up. Last year we shifted some of the costs to the employees so that there was an incentive to control costs. For that reason, I favor allowing the employees to have more of a choice in choosing their own benefits.

Conclusion 1: I supported the new insurance contracts with the expectation that we will have to find approximately $20,000 additional dollars this year for the benefits.

Issue 2: Water Accountability Ordinance. In September 2009, the City Council considered whether to remove fluoride from the water. It was a tied vote and the Mayor voted to leave fluoride in the water. This year Jamie Davis has made one of her goals removing fluoride from the water. She has proposed the Water Accountability Ordinance as a comprehensive approach towards water additives.

Analysis 2: The Water Accountability Ordinance proposes to (1) make companies guarantee the safety of their additives; (2) make the City verify the purity of the additives; and (3) prohibit additives that don't meet purity and health guarantees. While this is a great philosophy, I don't think that it's a good law. It needs changes. Companies will never accept guaranteeing the health of their product for all people without conditions. Secondly, I think that the law creates an overly difficult burden for placing additives in the water with the goal of making the hurdles too high to jump for any company. To me a better law would be banning water additives altogether instead of implementing standards that are so stringent that no one will be able to meet them.

Conclusion 2: I couldn't support the Water Accountability Ordinance in its current form. I wanted to see some things changed. However, I never had the chance to make those amendments prior to it being voted on. Therefore, I had to vote against the ordinance. As no other motion was made, the matter died.

The Business Improvement District Petition.

Issue 1: Consideration of the Business Improvement District.

Facts 1: For decades, the City of Sandpoint has had a business association for the downtown. Historically, this organization operated through volunteers and contributions. In 2000, a majority of the businesses petitioned the City of Sandpoint to create a taxing district as permitted by Idaho Code - the Business Improvement District.

Since 2000, the City has collected the taxes from downtown businesses according to the method (square foot assessment) and rates approved by the BID board. Each year the City also contracts out the management of the BID to the Downtown Sandpoint Business Association. The DSBA uses the revenue to host events in the downtown, make improvements and support the costs of administration, namely a full-time staff member. In effect, the BID is self-created, self-managed and self-administered.

The BID creation, management and value have consistently been debated. Business across 5th Avenue are especially critical stating that they receive very few benefits from a downtown business association.

Approximately one year ago, opponents to the BID brought a petition to the City to disband the BID. Under Idaho Code, if a majority of the business owners petition the City, the City Council must disband the BID. This initial petition had multiple problems. The signatures had been collected over a period of years. Signatures on the petition no longer supported the measure or had moved. At that time, it was recommended that the City reject the petition. I made a specific request to our City Attorney that he inform the petitioners of the requirements for a valid petition.

In March 2010, the petitioners returned with a new petition. I was informed by email that the City Clerk, City Attorney and Mayor had rejected some of the signatures on the petition. Consequently, the petition didn't meet the majority requirement. The Mayor then placed the matter on the Administrative Committee agenda without a recommendation stating that the Council could voluntarily disband the BID, if we choose.

Analysis 1: This was frustrating situation. The Administrative Committee took no part in the analysis or rejection of the signatures. This was action taken by the Clerk, Mayor and City Attorney. Despite that, when the Mayor placed this matter on the Administrative agenda, she made the Council the focal point for criticisms on how the process was handled.

I am sympathetic to those criticisms in part. From my own review, I wasn't able to get a clear determination of the standards that the City used to evaluate the signatures. From the perspective of the petitioner, I am sure that it appears that the City is using changing standards.

Conclusion: The BID has always been a self-created and self-managed taxing entity. From my perspective, Council action to shut down the BID -without a valid petition- would be taking a step away from the independence that the City has typically given the BID. Further, there was no proposal before the City Council. The Mayor had placed the item on the agenda without an advocate, recommendation, or proposal.

We listened to both sides of the argument because many people had shown up to speak on the issue and it's important that they have a forum. After the arguments had been stated, I requested a motion on the issue. No motion was made. The matter died in committee.