Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center
Mr. Richard Parkin, Acting Director
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Open Letter to the Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Commissioners,
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
