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.

March 2010 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Neighborhood Waterfront Parks: The City of Sandpoint was originally platted with roads. Some of these roads end in the water. Typically, these waterfront areas are used by the adjacent landowners. Earlier in the year, I proposed to use these roadways as public, neighborhood parks. At the time of the proposal, the legal ownership of these rights of way was questioned. So the matter was researched. After the research it was brought back to the Council.

Analysis 1: This idea has been floating around for decades. As waterfront property prices increase, there are fewer places for the public to access the water. Plus, it's only going to become more difficult as time continues. It's completely possible that in 20 years we'll have some of the same waterfront access issues that you find in California where accesses are hidden, covered or obstructed in order to prevent the public from using them.

Conclusion 1: This is a controversial measure but important for the community. We have a chance here to create four waterfront parks. The research concluded that at least some of these are feasible. We took this to the next step by placing them into the parks plan which will be adopted in the near future. Next we'll look for funding. I received a lot of criticism from the neighbors on this issue but we cleared up a couple of issues and I'm looking forward to seeing thee develop in the next decade into small, neighborhood swimming holes.

Issue 2: Whether to create a small local improvement district on Sixth Avenue. The City is going to be making improvements this summer along Sixth Avenue. Homeowners along Sixth Avenue will be required in the future to make certain improvements incuding sidewalks, sewer and others. So Councilwoman Logan has taken it on herself to take advantage of the City's work and allow homeowners to make the required improvements while paying for them over a period of decades through an LID.

Analysis 1: This is a really good idea. It takes advantage of the City's costs and work to lower the costs of improvements that these other homeowners will have to do.

Conclusion 1: I supported this because it's a great proactive measure. Unfortunately, the neighborhood didn't have enough support to create the LID according to the statutory requirements. At some point in time, these neighbors will have to pay for these improvements. I wish that they could have spread the costs over a period of years.

Issue 3: Sandpoint Urban Renewal: The City of Sandpoint created two urban renewal districts more than 5 years ago. These districts take tax money and use it for economic development.

Analysis 3: I've been both a vocal proponent and opponent of the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency. I'll discuss this more in a later post. However, I know that the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency is re-doing their plans and I want to make sure that they are soliciting the opinion of the Council so that the plans will be approved by Council.

Conclusion 3: I met with several members of SURA to discuss some of my concerns. At that meeting I asked what I could do to help them with the plan amendments. They states that they would really like to know the goals of City Council. I asked Council members for their goals and moved to approve the goals so that SURA could rely on them in drafting their plan amendments. The measure passed with a few changes.

February 2010 City Council Mtg.

Issue 1: The Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail MOU: The Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail is a group of people attempting to create a mile-long waterfront trail from the City of Sandpoint to the City of Kootenai. It is a beautiful and amazing trail that right now is private property. In September 2009 the Cities of Ponderay, Kootenai and Sandpoint along with Bonner County were granted a $650,000 grant to assess possible contamination along the route of the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail.

This MOU is just to create a steering committee for the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail. DEQ is administering the grant and has found it time-consuming to approach the four entities separately to disseminate information and communicate. The MOU is for this purpose.

Analysis 1: I drafted the MOU. I serve as legal counsel for the Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail. Consideration of the MOU was postponed until March.

Issue 2: Pedestrian Improvements. A member of Sandpoint's Pedestrian Advisory Committee was killed while crossing the street in late 2009. This has prompted the City, rightly, to review our pedestrian amenities.

Due to the lack of snow this year, we have funds that normally would be spent on pedestrian improvements. Councilman Reuter, requested that those funds, approximately $150,000, be used for pedestrian improvements. All together the cost of the improvements was approximately $200,000.

Analysis 2: This was a very important decision. Each year we have approximately $100,000 in funds to allocate among the departments for discretionary spending. So the ability to make $200,000 in improvements in the middle of the year is a very large decision. For that reason, it needed to be debated. WIth this proposal, Councilman Reuter was basically stating that pedestrian improvements were the highest priority for the public works department.

We debated the matter for a period of time. I eventually concluded that this was a good way to spend the money considering the recent pedestrian death. I would rather error on the side of caution and in favor of pedestrians. However, it is frustrating that we will be spending money in this instance to improve the same intersection where we rejected a 2008 grant for $100,000. All together I hope that the $200,000 has a dramatic impact on pedestrian safety.

Issue 3: Five new neighborhood beaches. For a while I have been interested in converting the City's old roads which end in the water to neighborhood parks. These roads are Larch, Ella, Boyer, Division and Euclid. At February meeting, I requested that the City research these rights of way and then send a letter to the adjacent property owners. The reason for this is that I believe that the City should use these at some time in the future for public, neighborhood parks. However, this should be a very gradual process as people are currently using these areas for their own space and any use of these public spaces needs to be sensitive to the adjacent property owners.

Analysis 3: At the Council meeting, it was suggested that staff research the ownership of these rights of way and return with their results. I completely supported this idea as any step that we take with these areas should be carefully considered.

Issue 4: Creation of A Joint Planning Commission: In the February Council meeting I proposed the creation of a joint planning commission between Sandpoint, Ponderay and Bonner County. The reason for this is that we are increasingly making planning decisions which affect our neighbors. In addition, we are letting opportunities for cooperation pass us by. As an example of an opportunity for cooperation, the City of Dover is planning to build a new sewer treatment plan in the next three years. Sandpoint is also planning to build a new sewer treatment plant within a similar time frame. We need to be looking at ways to regionally plan services in order to lower costs.

Analysis 4: A joint planning commission is authorized under Idaho Code. The commission can have as much or as little power as the jurisdictions want. I am willing to undertake this project and create a joint planning commission between the Cities of Sandpoint, Ponderay and Bonner County because I think that it will be helpful for planning our intertwined futures.

January 2010 City Council Mtg.

The Changing of The Council: It's difficult to watch the changing of the Council. For the past two years, I have worked very closely with Michael Boge and Helen Newton. For a shorter period of time, I have worked with John O'Hara.

No one is a Council member for the money. We are paid approximately $200 per month and health care benefits. I estimate that I average approximately 10 hours per week on Council business. So the hourly pay is not the incentive. Nor is the glory. The status of being a Council member is quickly overridden by the criticism.

We do it because we want to improve the City of Sandpoint. I genuinely believe that every Council member I have served with has the same overall goal. Under these circumstances, you develop a deep respect for the people serving with you. I'm sad to see Helen Newton, Michael Boge and John O'Hara leaving the Council. Together they have contributed decades of service. They worked hard and served very well.

That sadness is tempered by the prospect of the new Council members. They worked hard in their campaigns. They are bringing with them different areas of expertise for a larger number of perspectives on the Council. This is going to be a very exciting two years.

I compiled a list of the accomplishments of the 2008 - 2010 Council. I will try to attach it here at a later time.








Issue 1: Hands Free Cell Phone Ordinance. Mayor Hellar vetoed the cell phone ordinance. To override the veto requires four votes on the Council. I did not vote for the original cell phone ordinance because I don't feel that it is good policy to make cell phone usage illegal within an area as small as the City limits. It presents multiple problems in enforcement and also fairness. For that reason, I voted against the measure and voted against overriding the Mayor's veto. I expect Idaho legislation on this issue soon.

Issue 2: Election of Council President.

Historically, the Council president has been selected based on experience. In this circumstance, Carrie Logan and I are the longest-serving Council members. Since we have served the same amount of time, the number of votes is used to break the tie. This honor fell to me.

In reviewing whether to accept the position of Council president, I had very definite ideas of the role that the Council president should play. That individual should be highly engaged on issues and in constant communication with department heads and staff. I believe that a good Council president will make the Council much more efficient.

After starting with Berg & McLaughlin law firm in January, I was uncomfortable accepting a larger role on Council. I asked Carrie Logan whether she wanted the position. After conferring, we agreed that John Reuter was the natural selection for Council president. In nominating John Reuter for Council president, I requested that he focus on the issues that I stated earlier. John was confirmed and I think that he will do a very good job in leading this Council.

A Return To The Way Cities Used To Be Built.

I'm not prone to use this platform much to pontificate but I thought that I'd write a little about a general view that I've been forming. I sense that this perspective is the type that you begin to make fundamental to your outlook. This view is directly in regards to city planning. And its development has been slow. Very slow, in fact. But I've seen more and more evidence supporting this theory and I find myself viewing City business with these factors more and more. For that reason, I thought that I'd blog about it on here.

Smart growth. New urbanism. Modern planning. Call it what you'd like. The ideas are fundamentally the same - the construction of the urban environment. Even that phrase sounds trendy. But in reality the concept is a return to our roots. It's about building cities like they used to be built many decades ago. So let me describe events briefly for you.

Cities didn't use to have zoning regulations. Everyone used to just understand how to build a city. There was a main street where people would stroll and shops were built right to the sidewalk. Homes were built on the traditional street grid pattern. The lot sizes were small. The streets were fairly narrow.

After World War II, things changed dramatically. GIs returned accustomed to a military planning style. Automobiles became the prime consideration in city planning. Consequently, lot sizes were increased, roads were widened and the look and feel of our traditional cities changed dramatically.

Malls replaced our Downtown. The trend of wider streets and larger lots is still popular today. But it's interesting to note the early 80's trend of malls. I believe that malls provided us with the downtown that we wanted. Malls replaced the traditional downtown. They provided lots of stores with opportunities to stroll. As compared to our normal land use patterns, malls provide incredible density. If you were to consider the stores as lot sizes, the lots are also very, very small. Yet, this is what we enjoy. So even though our attraction with the automobile increased, our desire for traditional land use patterns did not waiver. Malls effectively sought to replace the traditional downtown but with a twist- large parking lots for our cars.

Now I don't believe that the automobile is evil. I use mine all the time and it's a great tool. However, I don't think that we should be afraid of some of these traditional land use patterns. So what I take from malls and historical downtowns is that small lot sizes are potentially good and density is appealing to people.

While I think that we might prefer the look and feel of traditional downtowns with small lot sizes, density and lots of walking, I don't think that we should necessarily mandate all of those things. We should just be working to encourage them for the benefit of our downtown. However, more and more I am realizing the importance of traditional land use patterns as a cost measure.

Traditional Land Use Patterns Cut Costs Let me just be clear here so that you understand what I mean by traditional land use patterns. I mean smaller lot sizes, higher density, smaller streets, traditional street grid pattern development (as opposed to cul-de-sacs). So let me take each of these and tell you why I think they're important.

1. Smaller lot sizes are critical for affordable housing. The cost of construction rises with supply and demand but in Sandpoint, the largest cost of any housing project is typically the land. By allowing smaller lot sizes such as we traditionally did, land costs are less and housing costs are less.

2. Density is important for affordability as well. For the past several decades we have built one building with one use per lot. Now as our land and construction costs have increased we need to be more efficient with how we use our land. This means placing multiple buildings with multiple uses on a lot. Ideally, these uses should even each other out. For example, by placing a house over a business you can share resources and minimize the impact of both uses. Businesses primarily operate from 9-5. During this time, a typical homeowner is away from their residence. However when a resident returns home, the business users are typically gone. It has been shown that sharing uses like this decreases crime and is a great benefit for the economy.

3. Smaller streets are a difficult issue. I think that the size of streets should be balanced with safety concerns. However, too often I believe that we build streets not for the majority of vehicles but to accommodate a minority of large vehicles. Smaller streets are more secure structurally and cost much less. In addition, smaller streets provide a sense of neighborhood to an area. Have you ever visited downtown Boise? There are two four-lane highways running through the downtown. Despite the City's best attempts, it doesn't have the look and feel of a downtown. Instead it feels like you're by the side of a freeway.

4. Traditional street grid pattern development is perhaps one of the most important things that we can do in a city. For the last several years, cul-de-sac neighborhoods have become popular. These are a terrible long-term decision for a couple of reasons:

Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase traffic be decreasing connectivity. Have you ever wanted to avoid Pine cutting through a side street? This is connectivity. However, cul-de-sacs push all traffic to arterial routes thereby increasing traffic.

Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase costs. It costs six times as much to snow plow a cul-de-sac than it does to plow a neighborhood. Six times!

Smart growth is cheaper. Finally this brings me to the most important and ultimately the most influential factor in my adoption of smart growth principles - it is cheaper. Not just slightly but dramatically.

As stated before, traditional street grid patterns cost less to maintain. But there is more to it than that. It is estimated in the City of Sandpoint that the City breaks even on sewer and water hookups when there are four units per acre. This means that for less than four units per acre, those units are actually subsidized by the other rate payers. It costs more to install and maintain half acre lots than the City will ever recover.

Secondly, density is cheaper. It costs almost twice as much to serve homes with sewer and water 5 - 10 miles away from the sewer and water plants than 1-4 miles away. So for a single family residence home on a one acre lot, the City is dramatically subsidizing that use. But sadly, that's not the use that we want to be subsidizing as a city. Those types of uses have a heavy reliance on automobiles which break down the roads more quickly. They have higher costs for public safety service with lower response times.

Conclusion. I don't believe that anyone should be prevented from living on a one acre lot in the country! I loved growing up in the country and I would consider raising my own kids there (if I ever have any). However, the fact is that for decades, we have been underestimating the costs of service for these uses. We consider these uses to be low-impact when in reality they are the most expensive and highest impact in terms of municipal costs.

It's time that we start correcting this imbalance. We should move to charge what the services cost for low-density developments. We should also find ways to encourage lower cost of service developments (i.e. high-density mixed use). These are going to keep our taxes lower. Finally, I will note that these are generally the areas that we naturally enjoy anyway. Take 6th Avenue for example. It has very small lot sizes on a traditional street grid pattern. Yet, it's one of my favorite neighborhoods in Sandpoint. I would also suggest South Sandpoint which actually has a surprising number of multi-family houses combined with traditional neighborhoods. These uses aren't inherently incompatible. They just need to be carefully implemented so that we encourage quality design and density that fits with a neighborhood.

November 2009 Council Mtg.

I was absent for the November 2009 Council meeting due to the fact that I was attending a conference in New Orleans, LA for the entire week. It is the first Council meeting that I have missed in approximately two years.

October 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether to approve payment for the tree booklet.

Rule 1: The Council must approve payments for all bills monthly.

Analysis 1: Each budget year, the Council approves a budget for each department. As part of the urban forestry budget, the Council approved last year more than $4,000 for urban forestry education.

Near the end of the fiscal year, the Tree Committee decided to create and order a tree booklet from the urban forestry educational line item. These tree booklets cost more than $4,000. Further, it appears that some members or family members of the Tree Committee were paid nominal amounts for their work on the booklet.

This is a terrible situation and I was initially angry. In a year when the Council worked extremely hard to pare down the budget, it is incomprehensible to me that the City would spend $4,000 on a tree booklet to be given away. Further the process was riddled with errors. Payments were made to members of the committee - something which should not have occurred. Secondly, delivery of the booklets was made on the last day of the fiscal year meaning that it must be paid for with the past fiscal year's funds.

My anger at this situation was squelched by the department head's response. It was handled quickly and appropriately in my opinion. Mistakes happen. On this matter, I am satisfied that sufficient controls are in place to prevent this situation from occurring again. For that reason, I voted to approve the bills without further discussion.

September 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether to purchase property for the future expansion of the City's sewer services.

Rule 1: The City is entitled to purchase property through Idaho Code for its needs.

Analysis 1: This property is offered at an incredible price. It is larger than 20 acres for a total of approximately $800,000. It is located right outside the City. I voted for this because it is a great deal for the City. EPA standards for point of discharge permits (the type of permit that the City has for sewer discharge into lake Pend d'Oreille) will continue to grow more stringent. It is likely that the City will need to move to some land application

Issue 2: Whether to remove fluoride from the drinking water.

Rule 2: The City is permitted by federal regulations to add fluoride to the water in certain amounts.

Analysis 2: I support taking fluoride out of the water but it’s a difficult issue. My grandfather was a dentist in town and the person who asked the Council originally to put fluoride in the water. Dentists, including my Dad, overwhelmingly support fluoride in the water. In addition, fluoride – if it were effective by being ingested and not by topical application as we now know – is aimed at helping kids and specifically kids who don’t regularly seek dental treatment. So, if fluoride in the water works, it helps poor kids. These are compelling reasons.

The reason that I voted against fluoride is two-fold. I don’t think that the studies show such significant health benefits for children - through ingestion of the water- that it is worth medicating the entire population with possible harmful consequences. Secondly, it’s a freedom of choice issue. I should have the option to choose what medications go into my body. So those are the reasons that I am against fluoride.

Fundamentally, this is a public health issue. For that reason, I initially voted to place the measure on the ballot for a public vote. When that failed, I voted to remove fluoride from the water. This also failed and fluoride will remain in the water.

Issue 3: Whether to allow skateboard, horse-drawn carriages and other non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown.

Rule 3: In the 1980's the City passed an ordinance banning non-motorized multimodal transportation from 1st Avenue, 5th Avenue, Cedar and Pine.

Analysis 3: I voted to approve all forms of non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown. Practically, people are already doing this. I doubt that people will intuitively understand that they must carry or walk their non-motorized vehicle on these streets. Further, the City police have never issued a single citation for a violation of this ordinance. Finally, the streets listed above are public highways. Public highways have their own safety requirements under state law. Therefore, any nonmotorized user of the state highways would be required to abide by those state laws.

Issue 4: Whether to approve fire department user fees.

Rule 4: Under state law, the fire department is permitted to charge user fees.

Analysis 4: I don't approve of any type of fire fees. In my opinion fire fees are to be supported by property tax. We have always supported our fire department equitably. This last budget year, the Council approved payment of $40,000 for the fire department's volunteer program.

I also think that fire user fees have the largest impact on the people least prepared to pay them. By that I mean that it is difficult for me to understand how we will send a bill for payment of services to someone who just lost their home to fire.

Finally, I find that the user fee proposal was incomplete. A large part of the fire department's duties are in responding to medical emergencies. However, the user fees focus only on fire fees which don't make up the bulk of the fire department's use. There was no effort to address the emergency medical aspect of user fees.

I voted against the fire user fees because they don't attempt in good faith to implement user fees for the bulk of the fire department's responses. Most importantly however, the user fees are unnecessary. The fire department is well supplied each year by the City of Sandpoit.

August 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether Litehouse Foods should be permitted a deferment to put in sidewalks.

Rule 1: The streetscape ordinance was recently re-done. Under the old code, deferments were granted liberally. Under the new code, a deferment is not available.

Analysis 1: Litehouse Foods submitted its application before the new streetscape ordinance was put into place. Therefore, the request should be considered under the old regulations.

Litehouse is a major employer in the City of Sandpoint. The company has stated multiple times that Sandpoint is not ideally geographically located for their operations. Despite this, Litehouse has a strong loyalty to Sandpoint and employs many people. Litehouse has stated that they wish to defer putting in sidewalks as part of their snow management program. The sidewalks are an issue due to the improvements that Litehouse intends to make to its parking lot facility.

Defering the requirement to put in sidewalks has been liberally granted for a variety of reasons in the past. In this instance, I support allowing Litehouse to defer the requirement. They are making improvements to their parking lot. If the section was paved, the snow would have to be plowed over the sidewalk curb. I believe this is a reasonable request and the City should be taking steps in this economy to aid a local employer.

Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the streetscape deferral for Litehouse Foods. The measure passed.

Issue 2: Whether to approve an ADA compliance plan for submittal to the Idaho Attorney General.

Rule 2: Mr. Lohman, a local resident, filed a formal complaint against the City for failing to comply with the ADA. The complaint had approximately 14 separate issues.

Analysis 2: After investigation, it was found that the City violated 2 to 3 of the issues. For example, in several instances, the City exceeded the thickness of asphalt that can be applied to a road without redoing some of the facilities. In another instance, the slope on some of the curb cuts installed exceeded regulation.

The City is proposing an amicable resolution to this matter. I support the resolution to this matter.

Conclusion 2: I approve the outlines for this settlement proposal.

Issue 3: Whether to impose fire fees for fire responses.

Rule 3: Fire response fees must be set by ordinance.

Analysis 3: I don't support the creation of fire response fees. Further, I believe that this approach is inadequate. Fire fees here are only being proposed for fire responses. However, the huge majority of fire calls are for emergency medical responses. Therefore these fees would be applicable to only a small portion of the City's fire responses. If having users pay fees is really the primary objective, then fees should be applied for medical calls. This is especially true as people are much more likely to expect response fees for medical emergencies rather than fire emergencies.

Conclusion 3: I don't support creating fire response fees. I believe that the payment of property taxes should support vital services like fire and police. This year, the fire department was funded for forty volunteers which were not funded last year. The City works hard to ensure that these operations are adequately funded. I don't believe there's the necessity now to impose these fees.

July 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Approval of the preliminary budget.

Rule 1: Each year by October 1st the City Council must pass a budget for the City. From the preliminary budget to adoption of the final budget, the amount cannot increase.

Analysis 1: I voted in favor of the preliminary budget because I think it's a step in the right direction. It decreases the budget over last year and puts more money towards roads. This is a good time to be constructing infrastructure because the costs are cheaper than we've experienced in recent history.

Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the preliminary budget.

Issue 2: Whether to vote to preserve the historic train depot.

Rule 2: The train depot was recently shut down by Amtrak. The City would like to make sure that the historic train depot is not demolished.

Conclusion 2: I voted to support the preservation of the historic train depot.

Cedar Street Bridge Land Exchange

Issue: Whether to exchange the Cedar Street Bridge for vacant land and 40 parking spaces.

Rule : A municipality may exchange land when it finds that two property values are equal and its in the best interests of the City.

Analysis: In the 80's, the City was going to have to pay for demolition of a bridge over Sand Creek. It was estimated that the demolition was going to cost approximately $100,000. Instead, a local developer offered to remove the scrap and build a structure on the previous right of way. The City agreed, vacated the right of way and leased the property to the developer for 99 years.

Under the lease, the first forty (40) years were leased for 1 dollar per year. The remaining 59 years were then according to a very vague equation for percentage of sales. In addition, the City guaranteed 40 parking spaces for the term of the lease in the City parking lot.

Clear Vision, LLC purchased the lease interest in the Bridge several years ago. Subsequently, they approached the City to condominiumize the Bridge for the remainder of the lease term, approximately 77 years. These negotiations were long and unsuccessful.

Clear Vision, LLC owns a small piece of property adjacent to City Hall. This property is zoned commercial. Clear Vision, LLC has requested to swap the City's interest in the Cedar Street Bridge in exchange for the 40 parking spaces and the parcel adjacent to City Hall.

The parcel of property adjacent to City Hall is assessed at $135,000. The City currently values parking spaces within the City at $10,000 each (for the purpose of in lieu fees). Therefore the consideration offered is approximately $535,000. In addition, the City has over-dedicated the parking spots in the City lot. If the City were ever to build a parking garage on the City lot or if Clear Vision, LLC were ever to request exclusive use of its spaces, the City would be in a very difficult situation.

It is extremely difficult to value the Cedar Street Bridge. The lease doesn't expire until 2086. There is no good way to determine the value of the City's current interest in the Bridge or the value of the Bridge in 2087, 77 years from now.

Conclusion: I voted for the property exchange and consider it a fair deal. It was important to me that the public retain the right to cross Sand Creek. This was done by an easement across the Cedar Street Bridge which will remain open to the public. The City doesn't have any right to the bridge until 2086. At that time, it is uncertain what condition the Bridge will be in. The City could have huge costs in repairing it. There is also additional value in eliminating the claim to parking spaces which will allow the City to build a parking structure in the future.

June 2009 Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Approval of John O'Hara to City Council.

Rule 1: New Council members are to be appointed by the Mayor and approved by a majorit vote of the Council.

Analysis 1: Doug Hawkins, Jr. resigned from the Council due to conflicts with work. John O'Hara served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a number of years and for a time served as the Chair of the P&Z Commission. He has lived in the area for 10 years and Sandpoint for 7 years.

Conclusion 1: I voted for John O'Hara because I think his P&Z experience will serve him well on the Council. He is level-headed and logical and I think that he'll make decisions that are in the best interest of Sandpoint.

Issue 2: Whether to approve the zone change for the Pederson sports complex.

Rule: Zone changes are to be approved if they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and meet criteria established in the Sandpoint City Code. However, a zone change cannot be tied to a specific proposal.

Analysis 2: Bruce Pedersen is a local developer. He has requested two zoning changes for a large-scale project. First, he has requested a change from Residence B to Residence C for approximately 1.2 acres near downtown Sandpoint. Second he has requested a zone change from Residence “B” to Professional Office “PO” for approximately 0.9 acres in the same area. Mr. Pedersen is proposing a large-scale ice rink and condominium project. The project has been named the Jamie Packer Center.

Conclusion 2: In this case, I approved the zone change. I believe that the changes are reasonable and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The measure passed.

Issue 3: Whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the application permit for the Jamie Packer Center.

Rule 3: The P&Z decision to approve the Jamie Packer Center was challenged by two individuals impacted by the development. The Lysters opposed the decision based on specific points for approval of the application permit.

Analysis 3: In my opinion, the Jamie Packer Center is well-designed. It has multiple elements which are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for parking, a community recreation center, mixed use housing, retail and preservation of the historic sites in the area. In addition, the development includes modern elements such as a vegetative roof, and scaled design.

This is a major development for Sandpoint. I feel that it's been done in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It preserves historic elements on the site and builds facilities that people in the City of Sandpoint have requested - such as a recreation center. However, there is the definite possibility that the proposals and design could change dramatically. For that reason, I supported every condition that tied to the developer to the proposal. As part of the application, I supported measures that required the specific design elements of the project. These were to insure that approval wasn't granted and then the plan dramatically re-designed.

Conclusion 3: I voted in favor of upholding the decision however, only if the developer followed the plan exactly as proposed.

Issue 4: Whether to place a roundabout at Larch and Boyer.

Rule 4: The Super 1 Foods building is to be constructed at the corner of Larch and Boyer. As a result of this construction, Super 1 must make some traffic improvements through use of its impact dollars.

Analysis 4: Boyer will be increasingly trafficked as a result of development along Boyer. As a result of the increase, it will be necessary to put some sort of traffic control device on Boyer and Larch. The decision is between a roundabout and a traffic signal.

I am in favor of the traffic signal as I think the roundabout is overly expensive. However, installing a traffic signal requires nearly as much space as a roundabout. The construction cost for a traffic signal is slightly less. The annual maintenance for a traffic signal is much greater, approximately $40k - $60k per year. Unfortunately, the standards for traffic signals do not allow small, unobtrusive signals on the sides of the street but instead major signals supported by large infrastructure.

Conclusion 4: I voted to install the roundabout. Traffic modeling shows that the roundabout will be more effective. In addition, it will cost less over the long run.

Issue 5: Whether to place the water bond on the November ballot for approval by the voters of Sandpoint.

Rule 5: The Idaho Constitution does not permit a municipality to indebt itself for more than one year. Indebtedness for more than one year requires approval by the voters.

Analysis 5: The City of Sandpoint will soon exceed its water supply capacity. This will primarily occur during the months from July to October when people are watering their lawns. Conservation measures and rates will only do so much.

The voters of Sandpoint didn't approve the bond at a special election held earlier this year. The Mayor and staff feel that this should be returned to the November ballot in order to avoid a possible crisis of water within the next few years. It will take approximately 3 years to construct the plant and therefore to address problems, the City should begin construction soon.

I voted to place the bond on the November ballot because even as a Councilman, I underestimated the seriousness of the situation. In order for people to enjoy the supply of water withotu interruption, then it will be necessary to construct some improvements. I believe that this highlights the need to regionalize water and sewer services but this will be a long process.

June 2009 Council Mtg Proposals - Hiring Freeze and Aff. Housing

June 2009 Council Meeting - Snedden Proposals

Issue 1: Whether to put in place a City-wide hiring freeze.

Rule 1: Levels of service are within the purview of the City Council. The Council regularly has considered expanding or minimizing the scope of services within the City. This includes staffing levels. These decisions are regularly made by the Council at the time of approving the budget. The Mayor handles administrative decisions and the day-to-day operations of the City.

Analysis 1: I proposed a hiring freeze because I believe it's the responsible measure. The future revenues of the City are uncertain. People are cutting back across the County. Others are losing their jobs. I have proposed that each time the City loses an employee, the position is not refilled unless with the express permission of the Council.

This measure has caused consternation with the Mayor and staff. The Police Chief is especially concerned as the Police Department has the highest turnover in the City and is possibly impacted the most by this measure. The Mayor specifically argues that the measure encroaches on her authority as manager of the City. I have argued in response that the City Council clearly has this authority in the budget and the measure is responsible.

Conclusion 1: I proposed an amendment that exceptions to the hiring freeze are overseen by the Mayor, instead of the Council. The measure passed unanimously.

Issue 2: Whether to implement four new affordable housing measures.

Analysis 2: The City should work to make it easier for affordable housing to be constructed in the City. For this reason, I have proposed four measures; (1) to create affordable housing plans for sale at a discounted rate by the City, (2) to waiver certain impact fees, (3) to allow payments for some sewer and water hookup fees and (4) leap-frog queue with affordable housing applications.

Conclusion 2: I don't believe that the City should manipulate supply and demand or directly participate in the housing markets. However, I do want to the City to have policies that make it easy to construct quality, affordable housing. For this reason, I proposed these four measures and voted in favor of them.

May 2009 Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Interim Commercial Zoning

Analysis 1: Last year, the City Council voted to adopt a new comprehensive plan. This plan calls for dramatic changes to the zoning ordinances. Until the new zoning ordinances are adopted, there is a conflict between what we allow through zoning and what our plan calls for. You may think how can zoning affect the look of a city? It can be dramatic. In my opinion, few people realize how much a built environment dictates their behavior. We like certain environments but often we fail to notice why.

For example, in shopping areas people like to browse windows. Small windows discourage street activity and walking. Therefore, you can state by ordinance that you want 50% of the area of a building facing the main street to be windows.

We already have a lot of these measures in a special zone along 5th Avenue. This zone is called the 5th Avenue Overlay District. In my opinion, it is very successful. The new buildings along 5th Avenue fit well. Due to this, I recommended several months ago that the 5th Avenue Overlay zoning district be used as a model for interim zoning measures until our new comprehensive plan can be put into place.

Conclusion: I voted to approve the interim zoning because I think they are an improvement until new zoning can be developed and put into place pursuant to the comprehensive plan.