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.