Earlier this week Joe Teehan on KBAI's Joe Show asked about the Horizon Lines vessel, Horizon Fairbanks, down on Bellingham's waterfront to which I gave a a very short answer so here's the long version.
In order to protect US shipbuilders and US workers the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 stipulated that shipping goods from US port to US port would require a US flagged vessel, built by US citizens in the United states, owned by US citizens and crewed by US citizens.
Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the Act here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
The Horizon Fairbanks is maintanied by Fairhaven Shipyard personnel, she is 669 feet long and built in Mississippi in 1973.
Her former names are the Sea-Land Marketer, Sea-Land Expedition and then Horizon Fairbanks.
Horizon Lines pays just under $1000 per day to moor the Fairbanks in Bellingham.
The good news is she brings consistent business to Bellingham, the bad news is she's not working. So if she goes back to work I'm sure we'll miss the income but that means the economy on our coast is much stronger.
Here's a couple interesting articles:
http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_841ec3e2-8286-5f04-b062-531ba33f91c7.html
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=852262
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Port Scoping Comment on GPT
The following is a letter I will submit to the Commission on Tuesday, 22 January 2013. Two weeks ago I asked that the Commission submit scoping comments on GPT, specifically related to economic impacts, but my argument was poorly formed and I had no documents prepared for review so the request fell flat. Because this is the final opportunity to weigh in as a formal body I will once again ask for Commission support. Should the commission refuse its full support by not signing the letter below, I have prepared essentially the same letter but coming from me personally and reworded to not use the port as a formal requester.
I have a great deal of respect for the port's mission and feel that it has, at times, strayed into territory best left to other agencies, so if the letter isn't quite what some folks would desire please note that the port's mission, though seemingly broad, is actually narrowly defined by state law and the letter below attempts to stay within the bounds of what ports do.
Thanks for reading and feel free to comment!
Mike M
...................................................................................................
I have a great deal of respect for the port's mission and feel that it has, at times, strayed into territory best left to other agencies, so if the letter isn't quite what some folks would desire please note that the port's mission, though seemingly broad, is actually narrowly defined by state law and the letter below attempts to stay within the bounds of what ports do.
Thanks for reading and feel free to comment!
Mike M
...................................................................................................
21 January 2013
From: Port
of Bellingham Commission
1801 Roeder Ave.
Bellingham, WA 98225
To: GPT/Custer Spur EIS
c/o
CH2MHill and Co-lead Agencies
1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400
1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400
Bellevue,
WA 98004
Re: Gateway Pacific
Terminal Scoping Comments
Dear Sir or Madam,
As the only government body
with elected representation tasked by the people of Whatcom County to focus
strictly on the fulfillment of certain, “essential transportation and economic
development needs of this region while providing leadership in maintaining
greater Whatcom County’s overall economic vitality” and, given that the Gateway
Pacific Terminal project meets county and state thresholds of significant
impact, it is, therefore, incumbent upon the Port of Bellingham, on behalf of
the citizens of Whatcom County whose interests the port serves, to request that
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT)
project, as proposed, include a robust assessment of transportation and
economic impacts, both positive and negative, created by the project.
It should be noted that
in 2010 the Port of Bellingham submitted a letter to the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources in support of a potential terminal at Cherry
Point. While not specific in drawing
distinctions regarding the commodities supported by a terminal, the Port of
Bellingham has a long standing position generally in favor of a deep-water terminal
at that location.
Because an EIS is
designed less as a tool to find what is ‘right’ about a project and more intent
on finding those actions that will create significant environmental burdens or
consequences, it is important for the port to be interested in issues pertaining
to the purview of the port and within the bounds of law; specifically, the economic
and transportation impacts of the project.
Per Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-444, the EIS is required to consider the
following:
2(c) Transportation
(i) Transportation systems
(ii) Vehicular traffic
(iii) Waterborne, rail, and
air traffic
(iv) Parking
(v) Movement/circulation of
people or goods
(vi) Traffic hazards
The Washington State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County have
determined GPT to be a project of significant impact, it is, therefore, wise to
consider not only the immediate environmental impacts at the site but also the
wider impacts upon the infrastructure required to support the terminal. Most notably, that infrastructure will be a
private rail line operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the
many public roadways the rail line intersects.
While the burden and risk associated with the commodities carried
on the rail are to be borne by private entities, the rail line itself does
cross a significant number of public roadways and will create impacts at or
near those crossings. An example of an analogous
situation is the addition of a multi-acre shopping center at a busy
intersection; there is a local standard for Level of Service (LoS) that is
acceptable at that intersection, with the addition of the shopping center that
LoS will be reduced if not mitigated by improvements. In regards to the GPT project there will be additional
and easily measurable traffic at the intersections of public roadways with the
BNSF line.
On behalf of the citizens of Whatcom County, the Port of
Bellingham has a direct interest in understanding and mitigating transportation
impacts to public properties owned by the port, notably in the City of Bellingham’s
Fairhaven and Waterfront Districts but also, in general, impacts that may
accrue at various crossings throughout the county causing notable delays to
commerce on county roadways.
There are quantifiable costs for traffic delays that prevent
business, commercial or commuter activities from ready access to truck routes,
state highways and major county roadways historically utilized by Whatcom
County businesses and residents. As
such, please include in the EIS a complete analysis and possible mitigations
for traffic impacts that consider both the additional burdens from auto traffic
and the effects of increased rail traffic throughout the county.
Furthermore, per WAC 197-11-448 the EIS may consider “the general
welfare, social, economic, and other requirements…in making final decisions.”
Private enterprise should not unduly burden the public by shifting
responsibilities and costs onto that public when that enterprise has no broad
public purpose. This statement is
reinforced by Whatcom County Code, Section 20.88.130(6): the proposed major
development “Will not impose uncompensated requirements for public
expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, and will not
impose uncompensated costs on other property owned.”
Whereas the Port of Bellingham is chartered to directly serve the
public within the bounds of Whatcom County and indirectly the public in our
region, it is inherent in that charter that the port has “pledge[d]…to
be a responsible trustee of our publicly owned assets”, in part, by appraising projects of significance, such as GPT, where the project
has wide ranging economic impacts.
To that end, it is in the best interest of the people of Whatcom
County that the Port of Bellingham request that the EIS thoroughly consider the
economic impacts, both positive and negative, of the GPT proposal on Whatcom
County’s various cities, the county itself and the region serving or being
served by Whatcom County.
The Port of Bellingham was chartered by a vote of the people 92
years ago to serve public interests throughout Whatcom County and, by extension
of those interests, the northwestern region of Washington State. The port owns,
on behalf of the people of Whatcom County, substantial real estate holdings directly
affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, as a key economic development
agency for Whatcom County, the port has an interest in efforts that impact the
county and regional economy. It is in
the spirit of fully understanding the effects of the project on this county
that the Port of Bellingham requests the NEPA and SEPA processes engage a
robust analysis of the transportation and economic impacts in developing the Gateway
Pacific Terminal EIS.
With most sincere regards,
____________________________________________
Jim Jorgenson, Commission President
____________________________________________
Mike
McAuley, Commission Vice-President
____________________________________________
Scott
Walker, Commission Secretary
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Cornwall Beach Park
Some thoughts on the new Cornwall Beach Park.
First, let's create a new experience on the waterfront. Marine Park, Boulevard Park and Zuanich Point create a very monochromatic experience in Bellingham. So what sort of buildout might we see?
The initial construction should be minimal as it fits into the cleanup, restoration and sequestering of the landfill. Grading the site should provide a base to start from not a final product. I say this because I believe that designers work very diligently to create the experience on paper then build it in reality, sort of a Disney-esque approach. The problem with this approach is that unlike a theme park public spaces have to work all by themselves without artificial stimuli constantly injected from a guiding hand. Leaving the park in a minimal state for some years will allow the public uses to identify themselves and then budgets can be altered to provide a permanent solution for those uses.
There is a cleanup at the RG Haley property, now City owned, that may take advantage of a need for some parking or hard spaces. Through capping, sequestering and managing stormwater/groundwater we may see a lower cost cleanup there. If the land is capped we can use it for parking areas, boat storage and day use boat launching. The shoreline will be armored in areas but a groin built into the bay can provide protection for a softer beach and boat small boat launch.
I suggest that a small boat launch could provide a replacement for the launch in Fairhaven when the old one silts in. The Fairhaven launch is already compromised so we should get this going quickly.
Another idea is to add 7 sandy firepits. The emotional joy we get from enjoying a shoreside fire is almost a primal one yet in urban waterfronts it's nearly impossible to do. Cornwall Beach offers this opportunity. This type of activity also breaks up the monochrome Bellingham waterfront park experience.
My vision right now? A boaters area with some parking for trailered boats that can be launched there, an organization like the Community Boating Center managing a small boat activity or selling bundles of firewood, basic infrastructure that is affordable and doable right now e.g. regrade, cap, hydroseed, add firepits and a few gravel trails.
First, let's create a new experience on the waterfront. Marine Park, Boulevard Park and Zuanich Point create a very monochromatic experience in Bellingham. So what sort of buildout might we see?
The initial construction should be minimal as it fits into the cleanup, restoration and sequestering of the landfill. Grading the site should provide a base to start from not a final product. I say this because I believe that designers work very diligently to create the experience on paper then build it in reality, sort of a Disney-esque approach. The problem with this approach is that unlike a theme park public spaces have to work all by themselves without artificial stimuli constantly injected from a guiding hand. Leaving the park in a minimal state for some years will allow the public uses to identify themselves and then budgets can be altered to provide a permanent solution for those uses.
There is a cleanup at the RG Haley property, now City owned, that may take advantage of a need for some parking or hard spaces. Through capping, sequestering and managing stormwater/groundwater we may see a lower cost cleanup there. If the land is capped we can use it for parking areas, boat storage and day use boat launching. The shoreline will be armored in areas but a groin built into the bay can provide protection for a softer beach and boat small boat launch.
I suggest that a small boat launch could provide a replacement for the launch in Fairhaven when the old one silts in. The Fairhaven launch is already compromised so we should get this going quickly.
Another idea is to add 7 sandy firepits. The emotional joy we get from enjoying a shoreside fire is almost a primal one yet in urban waterfronts it's nearly impossible to do. Cornwall Beach offers this opportunity. This type of activity also breaks up the monochrome Bellingham waterfront park experience.
My vision right now? A boaters area with some parking for trailered boats that can be launched there, an organization like the Community Boating Center managing a small boat activity or selling bundles of firewood, basic infrastructure that is affordable and doable right now e.g. regrade, cap, hydroseed, add firepits and a few gravel trails.
Leaky sewers in the harbor?
A Bellingham Herald reader told me that there is and has been a leaky sewer somewhere in Squalicum Harbor so I spoke with port maintenance, harbor staff and real estate personnel to track this down. No person had any idea what this could be referring to, even the longest employed had never even heard of a leak in years past. So, for now no information is available to help this person.
There are several stormwater outfalls all across the entire waterfront so maybe that's what that person meant?
There are several stormwater outfalls all across the entire waterfront so maybe that's what that person meant?
Friday, November 9, 2012
E.D. Speculation
There has been much speculation today
on how the port commission got to a final decision on the new port
director. I will present the facts here. I do this to provide the
public with the background on how the commissioners arrived at our
decision – whether you agree with the choice, or not, this post is
intended to show I am striving to remain open and transparent.
Earlier this year the commission took
an unfortunate position on Charlie Sheldon which put him in an
awkward place so he resigned; I did not agree with the majority on
the commission. After that action we put Rob Fix, the port's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), into the interim director's seat. That was
a politically challenging but nonetheless rational move and here's
why: the commission discusses many topics regarding the port, among
them future needs for staffing to meet long term goals. We had
discussed long term succession plans with Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Fix was
one person we would have looked at to replace Charlie when he decided
to retire. That doesn't mean Mr. Fix would have been promoted then
or that he would even still be working at the port but we would
certainly look internally to fill roles, most organizations do this
and I agree with the practice. Thus, and I will grant you the
questionable circumstances argument, the choice to make Rob the
interim director makes sense.
We then went out to the marketplace
using a respected search firm to find a new director. After a long,
careful process we wound down to 9 candidates that each commissioner
was able to interview one on one. Yes, Rob was in the pool of nine.
As I stated above, I do believe that internal candidates should be
interviewed. As a rule the names of people interviewed but not
selected for the final unveiling are not discussed publicly so as to
protect their employment status where they currently work – it is
standard practice and appropriate. Since Rob was not selected in the
final 3 we kept his name, as well as the other 5, confidential.
This is the reason you did not know about his interview, just as you
will not know the names of the other candidates since it is crucial
to maintain that privacy.
We brought 3 candidates forward to vet
through our local process and those were Jonathan, Bill and Les. Jon
most closely fit the criteria the commission identified and we
intended to extend an employment offer to him. However, later we
learned that Jon felt he wasn't going to be a good fit here. And,
no, it's not an east coast/west coast thing, I believe that Jon's
work has led him to positions that seem similar to our port but
differ in execution. We have a very hands on system of
governance in this state that dates back to our inception, we may
seem like busy bodies but we get involved in our government
activities and take ownership in ways that are unfamiliar to folks
from other places.
So, Jon came out here, we interviewed
him, he interviewed us and he felt like he wouldn't be a good fit. I
applaud him for being honest enough to the citizens here to take a
good look and choose carefully, that is worthy of respect and I
extend my thanks and respect to him for being professional enough to
do that.
Given that we still had great
candidates to choose from your commission went back into session to
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those candidates. This means
we discussed all the candidates in the pool of 9 we identified
earlier so that each was carefully weighed once again. We then
decided that the pool should be reduced to Bill and Les, who are both
very capable and very qualified, as well as a third candidate from
the pool, Mr. Fix.
Each candidate was discussed very
candidly, very openly and no holds were barred. The commission did
not flip a coin, nor sit around over beers joking our way to a
conclusion. We had an extremely honest conversation amongst ourselves
and individually came to the same point.
I am breaking no confidences sharing
the following, it is my honest and best conclusion. I will say that
Mr. Panos brings an unearthly set of skills in his toolbox but not
quite what we are after. Mr. Reardanz is an exceptionally skilled
lawyer and becoming a great asset at the Port of Everett but I felt
he needs more port time in the trenches before taking a leadership
role. Both men will continue to succeed and I wish them all my best.
Our decision to hire Mr. Fix rests on
one and only one premise: who can best serve the needs we have
identified. For me, economic development through the facilitation of
job creation is paramount and one of the two goals in the port's
mission statement. Good stewardship of the public's assets is
another critical goal and all three finalists were certainly capable
of giving us their best and succeeding. We have seen Mr. Fix's work
over the past 4 years and in the last few months he has done well as
our interim director.
Jim and Scott have their own points
which you will have to ask them for, I won't speak for them here.
It was decided that further delay, more
looking or a new process would still leave us in an uncertain
position with just as many unknowns. You will criticize us for
presenting a sham process but I assure you it was as I have described
above. I hope that you will see I have been open and honest since
the day I took office, that when wrongs at the port need exposing
that I will expose them. I further hope that you will see my airing of this
story is to ensure that you have the same facts I have had.
You may criticize us and given this
past year we haven't made the best choice every time so we are
deserving of your scrutiny. What I hope you will do now is continue
to push us for our best, as well as push us to get the best from the
port leadership and staff. The Port of Bellingham belongs to the
people of Whatcom County and the commission is your conduit so thank
you for staying engaged.
If you have any questions or need
clarification ask me here rather than a phone call so I can make sure
to share with as many people as possible
Friday, October 19, 2012
The ED and Job Creation
Text of a recent response I sent to a reader regarding the port's ED and job creation.
.............................................................................................................................
I don't think expertise in any specific field is necessary in the ED, although it would be desirable and helpful depending on that experience.
I believe we need a well rounded person who can champion and put into play the vision of the commission, which should be the vision of the owners - you, the taxpayer.
The ED is appointed, at will, by the commission so it's extremely important that the port isn't "controlled" by the director - the port should be "managed" by the director.
As to job creation: I don't believe it is the port's job to create jobs, rather, it is the port's job to manage the public's land portfolio and other assets in such a way that the private sector can find opportunities for success. It may seem like parsing words but I don't think so. I think the port should be a facilitator bringing interests, ideas and people together all of which can then capitalize on the synergy or geography of our region to advance our county's economic goals.
Your port should create opportunities, and in the case of the local capture of over 900 jobs on the waterfront (granted short term, I know, but that company just signed a 5 year lease so there will be some long term work), a refocus on the fishing community, dozens more private hires at the airport, high rates of occupancy in port buildings, etc, etc, I think that the port has been working toward that "creating opportunities" end reasonably well.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
My 5 Commissioner Effort
The following is a verbatim response I sent to a proponent of the 5 commissioner proposal who has criticized my approach. After that is a bit more explanation.
................................
"I have your input, thank you for that. I am now seeking legal advice from an independent third party that represents neither you nor the port. This way I can be assured that the reading of the statute and the language of the question are both simple and clear. I want no part of an ambiguous effort. Simple, clear, legitimate and defensible - that is my goal. You asked for my leadership and you are getting it, what you won't get is your own special voice to do what you want. I take it very seriously that I represent the people of Whatcom County and to that end I will work for the greatest good for the majority. Again, you have asked for my leadership on proposing 5 commissioners and you will get my honest, hardworking effort as promised." (end of quote)
I will be bringing the correct resolution regarding a five commissioner proposal to our June 19th Port meeting. Given Mr. Jorgensen's own proposal at our last meeting, I believe the measure will pass and go on to the November ballot.
The resolution will ask for a five member commission with seats distributed among five new districts. With five districts I believe a clear message will be sent to the entire county that the Port of Bellingham represents the ENTIRE county and if the measure passes then we will ensure an equitable distribution of commissioners.
Those five districts should be apportioned equally and randomly by population ONLY, with no regard whatsoever to gerrymandering that can favor any particular viewpoint - especially since the purpose of 2 extra commissioners is to improve representation not create political stalemates, that would be ridiculous and should be avoided at all costs. The districts would have district only primaries as now, with county wide runs for each district's top two out of the primary.
In the coming week I will be working with independent legal counsel while simultaneously researching the effort that 4 other ports used to increase or attempt an increase to five commissioners. It is important to me that the legal vetting of the resolution be done carefully by people skilled in interpreting law.
Combined with the Port's legal staff opinion, we will have 6 legal opinions and/or precedents to guide the process. These 6 examples will inform the work in bringing a proper resolution to my fellow commissioners on the 19th. We will propose a properly worded ballot question that can survive a legal challenge if the measure passes in November; here in Washington we are all aware that badly worded ballot initiatives can be thrown out after an election.
It is no secret that I believe the push for five commissioners is a knee jerk reaction to some bone-headed decisions by your current commission, of which I am a member. However, it is not my place to decide for the citizens of this county how their governments will be structured, therefore, I have worked with the proponents to bring the question to the November ballot this year, 2012, for a vote by the people.
Regardless, new voices, experience and viewpoints will certainly inform the guidance of the Port of Bellingham so that it can continue to serve and succeed for the the people of Whatcom County. I have spent the past two and a half years working toward that end and hope to go on serving and working for the people of this county for some time to come.
Thank you to all who have read this post. I think it explains my position and that I am moving carefully to ensure the effort is above reproach. You may have your own opinion so please weigh in, let me know what you are thinking.
................................
"I have your input, thank you for that. I am now seeking legal advice from an independent third party that represents neither you nor the port. This way I can be assured that the reading of the statute and the language of the question are both simple and clear. I want no part of an ambiguous effort. Simple, clear, legitimate and defensible - that is my goal. You asked for my leadership and you are getting it, what you won't get is your own special voice to do what you want. I take it very seriously that I represent the people of Whatcom County and to that end I will work for the greatest good for the majority. Again, you have asked for my leadership on proposing 5 commissioners and you will get my honest, hardworking effort as promised." (end of quote)
I will be bringing the correct resolution regarding a five commissioner proposal to our June 19th Port meeting. Given Mr. Jorgensen's own proposal at our last meeting, I believe the measure will pass and go on to the November ballot.
The resolution will ask for a five member commission with seats distributed among five new districts. With five districts I believe a clear message will be sent to the entire county that the Port of Bellingham represents the ENTIRE county and if the measure passes then we will ensure an equitable distribution of commissioners.
Those five districts should be apportioned equally and randomly by population ONLY, with no regard whatsoever to gerrymandering that can favor any particular viewpoint - especially since the purpose of 2 extra commissioners is to improve representation not create political stalemates, that would be ridiculous and should be avoided at all costs. The districts would have district only primaries as now, with county wide runs for each district's top two out of the primary.
In the coming week I will be working with independent legal counsel while simultaneously researching the effort that 4 other ports used to increase or attempt an increase to five commissioners. It is important to me that the legal vetting of the resolution be done carefully by people skilled in interpreting law.
Combined with the Port's legal staff opinion, we will have 6 legal opinions and/or precedents to guide the process. These 6 examples will inform the work in bringing a proper resolution to my fellow commissioners on the 19th. We will propose a properly worded ballot question that can survive a legal challenge if the measure passes in November; here in Washington we are all aware that badly worded ballot initiatives can be thrown out after an election.
It is no secret that I believe the push for five commissioners is a knee jerk reaction to some bone-headed decisions by your current commission, of which I am a member. However, it is not my place to decide for the citizens of this county how their governments will be structured, therefore, I have worked with the proponents to bring the question to the November ballot this year, 2012, for a vote by the people.
Regardless, new voices, experience and viewpoints will certainly inform the guidance of the Port of Bellingham so that it can continue to serve and succeed for the the people of Whatcom County. I have spent the past two and a half years working toward that end and hope to go on serving and working for the people of this county for some time to come.
Thank you to all who have read this post. I think it explains my position and that I am moving carefully to ensure the effort is above reproach. You may have your own opinion so please weigh in, let me know what you are thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)