City Council, December 9th - CAP Annual Report

On Monday Council will receive an annual report on the Climate Action Plan. On the one hand, maybe we should take an extra moment to appreciate it, as this seems like the kind of thing, and the manager the kind of position, the Budget Committee will find reason to cut as we face our budget crisis.

On the other hand, overall there is too much managing to process and procedure, to box checking, and not enough managing to and reporting on actual emissions reduction or on metrics for things that directly contribute to emissions. (This problem precedes the CAP manager, and is not something she is primarily responsible for starting, it should be noted, but is hopefully something she pushes against.)

CAP Annual Report

It was good finally to see some numbers on the Get There Challenge, but the numbers are not properly contextualized. The participation rate, which is very small, should be mentioned. Every number should also be expressed as a proportion of a total, even an estimated one, not merely a count. (The City should also have promoted it externally, publicly to the whole city. They were silent on it.)

It should also report on participation rate

One thing that looks a little odd is "the average one-way commute distance," 6.5 miles. Isn't that pretty much outside of city limits since city facilities are in the center? That's a whole topic! What's going on there?

The reporting continues to place too much weight on programming centered on garbage instead of emissions. First EarthWise, and now Greenbiz. The Greenbiz website is also opaque, and it is not possible to see what they are measuring.

Earthwise was about garbage, not emissions

The "metrics" for Greenbiz go to a very hazy summary page that is not useful. Maybe it's an improvement on Earthwise, but it's not possible to say. The opacity is suspicious!

A "sustainability" theme rarely focuses on emissions

There's just too much on the symbolism of "sustainability" and not enough on specific metrics for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

No mention of emissions reductions

In light of the recommendations last week to consolidate three urban renewal advisory boards into one citywide one, it is interesting to see some reappointments to the DAB.

Recommendation: Combine Urban Renewal boards

Maybe some cross-boundary or more at-large perspectives would be less insular, though insularity has not seemed to be a great problem on those advisory boards. More interesting is why consolidation is recommended for boards that actually grapple with budgets and substantive matters, but underpowered boards like CATC were not singled out for comment. From here the recommendations at Council last week were not very responsive to making a compelling case for board/commission reform.

• DAB reappointments (existing members)
  
• DAB appointments (new people) and other boards
• Last week's report on board/commission reform
  

Three Salemites appealed the Planning Administrators approvals on the baseball improvements at Bush Park, and based on this it seems likely they will also appeal the Historic Landmarks Commission approvals. This instance of delaying tactics is disappointing.

Bullets for the rest (including a couple of items from last week, as there didn't seem to be much to say about that meeting):

• The City is going to prepare for Eminent Domain on right-of-way for bridgework on 17th Street between Chemeketa and Center at Mill Creek. One property owner is lawyering up.
  
• The administrative purchases has a contract for a bit of work on Marine Drive.
• The City and a developer appear to have successfully negotiated and avoided a LUBA hearing on an odd case where the City rezoned property in ignorance of a DEQ restriction.
• Final tally on votes for Mayor and City Council
  
• Last week Council got an update on the bond projects. I didn't see anything new in it.
• Also last week Council recieved the 2024 Annual Community Report, and there didn't seem to be anything worth remarking on in it.