Talking Kelso

Joe Wheeler resigned his position on the council this morning. The time commitment needed to be a councilmember can be tough to balance with other responsibilities, especially when you run a business like Joe does. Joe’s dedication, especially to improving our industrial area, will be missed on the council.

With the opening created by Joe’s resignation, the council will have to appoint a successor to his position representing the East Kelso ward. We are looking to complete that process in a reasonably quick fashion, requesting that interested candidates submit their application by Friday, May 8. I anticipate a special meeting on Tuesday, May 12 to interview selected applicants and probably make an appointment.

If you live in the city limits east of I-5 and are interested in having the council consider you for the open position, visit the city’s website for details and an application packet. We would love again to have the nice problem of too many well-qualified applicants for the position!

We had the opportunity last night to hear from Roger Brooks at Destination Development about his company’s experiences visiting Kelso from a tourist’s perspective. Brooks specializes in helping cities identify areas for improvement and strategies to increase local tourism (also known as getting our citizens some money from outside our community!)

Brooks identified some shortcomings in the area, such as poor signage directing visitors around town, a lack of downtown greenery, and opportunities for improving cleanliness and neatness of commercial properties in the downtown core. However, he also noted many assets that the city has which could be leveraged to increase tourism, such as a nice compact downtown area, an attractive city hall, and a beautiful (Three Rivers) golf course. Brooks encouraged us to adopt a theme (also known as a brand) to unify efforts for attraction and decoration of properties and in marketing.

Because Brooks’ company specializes in providing consulting services helping cities develop branding, it was no surprise that one of his suggestions would include a thematic approach. What did surprise me is that without input from community members, the brand that Destination Development identified was a Scottish theme. Brooks pointed out possible applications of this theme, such as decorating downtown properties in a Scottish or British style, encouraging businesses that fit that theme (Scottish restauranteurs are welcome), etc.

The neatest part about this recommendation is that I’ve heard similar thoughts from citizens repeatedly, so it seems like a brand that would be embraced by the community. My biggest fear in the branding process was that we would have to try to squeeze ourself into a ‘made up’ brand that really wasn’t who we are. With a Scottish theme, we would already have many pieces in place, like our high school sports teams, the popular Highlander Festival, and even a plaid city flag!

Tuesday, April 22, we will hear the results of a recent evaluation of Kelso from the perspective of a visitor to the community.  The evaluation, performed by Destination Development, is designed to help identify ways that we can make the city more attractive to tourism and development.  In other words, we want to figure out how to get money from outside the area.

Some at the city have been fearful of the public whipping they’re afraid is inevitable at this meeting.  Personally, I welcome the opportunity to hear about things we can do better.  It shouldn’t be threatening.  We all know that there are areas we can improve, as well as many things going right.  The sooner we figure out the improvements needed, the sooner we can correct them.

In my business, we’re required to have a peer review every three years.  I’ve always chosen to have the same procedures performed annually, even though it’s not required.  In that instance, like this, I want an outside perspective to help identify what we can do better.

Anyway, if you’ve got some time Tuesday night, come join us to hear the results of the evaluation.

Here’s a link to the agenda packet for this week’s meeting.  Some of the highlights:

• We’ll allocate the HOME funds that we receive to help fund various low income housing projects.  The proposed projects include funding part of a Habitat for Humanity house, providing rental assistance for domestic violence victims, and providing rental assistance for participants in the HOPE and drug court programs.
• We’ll consider rezoning several parcels on 7th Ave NW in West Kelso to allow the construction of some multiplexes.
• We will consider awarding a bid for this year’s paving program, which will take place in the industrial area.
• We’ll decide on a possible lease of land at the airport for the construction of new hangars, designed to increase capacity to accommodate some on the waiting list at the airport.

I think the fireworks issue has been resolved. According to the Daily News, the applicant will not further pursue a permit, and based on a phone call from the supplier, he will not be pursuing the permit further. At this point, I don’t expect fireworks permits to come up again until next year.

Over the last few years, there have been four fireworks stands that the city has licensed. These stands were operated by three organizations (one organization has two stands). This was based on the city’s code that says we can issue “one permit per five thousand population, or portion thereof” each year. This code was interpreted in the past to allow an organization to operate two locations under one permit. As a result, there were actually more stands than “permits.”This year, one of last year’s permit holders decided not to have a stand. The city has kept a list of interested permit applicants that has functioned as a waiting list in the past. As a result, the next organization on the list was contacted, and they, like one of the current holders, wanted to have two stands. This didn’t sit too well with the current two-stand permit holder, so their rep came to the last couple council meetings to point out that under state law, each stand is covered by a separate permit. Her contention was then that our code allowing three “permits” is most accurately construed as allowing three stands, not four, and certainly not five.

Our attorney agreed that her interpretation was likely correct, and that we should only issue permits for three stands. The council decided on a 4-2 vote to allot those permits to the three surviving stands from 2007. This left no permits available for the new applicant.

The decision we made was based on the limit contained in our code. However, there’s nothing that would prevent us from amending the code to allow four or more stands in the city. I suspect that at the next meeting, we will consider such an amendment so that the new organization can have at least one stand for at least this year.

I’m sure that the applicants, all nonprofit organizations, would use the proceeds for programs that benefit youth and other community members. However, the whole process has felt a little … I think “icky” is the best word. It has frequently been the wholesale fireworks suppliers making presentations to the council, and the applicant who’s been “in” fighting to keep anybody from getting what they’ve had, and the new one fighting for a piece of the market. One side says there were four stands last year, and the other says, no, there were only three. It has felt self-serving on all sides.

After all of this, the new applicant who didn’t get a permit last night has been going around town saying the only reason they were denied a permit was because they were from Longview. That’s completely inaccurate, and an odd way to lobby us to make a change that would allow them to get a permit.

TDN’s story…

Word on the street is that the city was awarded the $150k skate park grant we applied for from the state. Watch the newspaper or this space for more information as it becomes available!

Update:  I’ve confirmed this to be true…we’re on the way to finishing this LOOOOONG project!