BACKGROUND:

• Around the world, countries are calling for innovation in the transportation sector to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and curb green house gas (GHG) emission. Of particular interest have been electric vehicles (EV) and other alternatives to conventional gas-powered vehicles (CV). But obstacles have prevented mass adoption: high prices of batteries, long refueling time, and lack of infrastructure.
• Introducing battery technology into vehicles and the energy infrastructure would lead to significant petroleum reduction and cost to the EV driver. While there are several proposals for making EVs more practical, it has been difficult to compare the options due to their differences. The NREL developed the Battery Ownership Model (BOM) to evaluate the various strategies. The dynamic model calculates the cost of vehicle ownership under various scenarios: vehicle and component cost, battery and fuel prices, location, driving behaviors, charging costs, and infrastructure requirements. The result is a “levelized cost per mile” (LCPM).

KEY DOCUMENT: “Battery Ownership Model: A Tool For Evaluating The Economics Of Electrified Vehicles And Related Infrastructure,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy; January, 2011

KEY FINDINGS:

• For the study, the NREL compared the LCPM for sample pure electric vehicles (EVs), conventional gasoline-powered vehicles (CVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
• The results of the model show that “there are scenarios where HEVs, PHEVs, and even EVs can be less expensive than CVs, and it highlights which parameters have the largest influence over the vehicle levelized cost per mile.”
• The model presents a scenario assessing the LCPM for a mid-size vehicle of four different power-train options: a CV, HEV, a PHEV with 40 miles of electric range (PHEV40), and an EV with 100 miles of electric range (EV100). For all, the vehicle is assumed to be owned for 15 years and have a similar initial cost. The design variables include: cost for GHG emissions in dollars per ton of CO2 equivalent emitted per year; the amount of federal tax incentive offered to buyers of the EV100 and PHEV40; the Energy Information Administration gasoline forecast scenario used: reference or high-oil price case; the annual VMT per year; the magnitude of accessory loads on the vehicle from 0.7 to 2.2 kW; the battery energy cost coefficient; and the battery life coefficients representing different battery life curves.
• “Over the range of design variables examined, the model predicts fuel economy to be between approximately 26 and 32 mpg for the CV, 35 and 44 mpg for HEV, and between 248 and 353 Watts-hours per mile (WH/M) or 95 to 135 mpg for the EV100,” based on the conversion formula of 33,705WH/gallon. The model predicts that the PHEV40 has aggregate fuel consumption between 54 and 74 mpg gasoline; and 103 to 128 WH/M on electricity-only, or 263 to 327 mpg.
• The model showed that accessory load is a major factor behind the change in fuel consumption rate of EVs, and an EV with a 100-mile electric range was found to be most sensitive to battery cost and cycle life.

BACKGROUND: The South Kirkland Park and Ride sits on seven acres at 108th Avenue Northeast and NE 38th Street in southernmost Kirkland, bordering Bellevue. Owned by King County, which operates the regional transit agency Metro, the site is considered an ideal location for transit oriented development (TOD). It is already a transit hub providing service to the Totem Lake Urban Center, the University of Washington and downtown Seattle, as well as employment centers and residential areas in all directions. It’s adjacent to a planned north-south pedestrian and bicycle corridor. Also accenting the the benefits of transit-oriented development at the site, demand for commuter parking there is expected to increase with tolling beginning in Spring, 2011 on the State Route 520 bridge which connects Seattle and Eastside cities across Lake Washington, and during the coming multi-year construction project to replace the failing bridge. If steps allowing the project to move forward are taken before early 2011, King County may be able to claim $6.25 million in funding from the US Department of Transportation, covering some but not all of the added parking, and some other project costs.

KEY DOCUMENT: South Kirkland Park and Ride Principles of Agreement, City Of Kirkland, approved 11/16/10

KEY FINDINGS:

The agreement emphasizes the following principles in further developing the existing facility.

• Expand park and ride capacity. Add 250 more parking spaces to the current 603 parking stalls, to better serve Bellevue and Kirkland residents and encourage higher transit ridership. Promote shared-use parking between residents and Park and Ride users. Improve transit facility and provide charging stations for electric vehicles as funding becomes available.
• Provide local services. Incorporate ground floor commercial space into the housing project design to provide opportunities for businesses that support transit riders, residents and surrounding activities. There would be 12,500 square feet of commercial space.
• Timing. Proceed with the project in a timeframe that protects the existing federal funding available for the park and ride expansion.
• Feasibility. Facilitate a financially feasible project. (This would entail partnerships to fund the housing component, especially).
• Coordination. Coordinate among Bellevue, Kirkland, and King County Metro Transit to streamline permit reviews and inspections as much as possible and in keeping with the goals of the project.
• Attractive and compatible site development. Incorporate high-quality design standards. Develop an attractive site and building complex compatible with surroundings, and providing a welcoming gateway to both Bellevue and Kirkland. Wherever possible, preserve landscaped buffers and use green building techniques. Provide a safe and secure facility.
• Range of housing affordability. The Kirkland City Council aspires to address the City’s affordable housing needs by the creation of 200 multifamily units, up to half of which are to be affordable to low or moderate income households.
• Impact mitigation. Minimize and mitigate traffic and other impacts of the development. Encourage alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling and walking.
• Construction impacts. Minimize construction impacts on park and ride users and the surrounding area, including providing replacement park and ride spaces during construction. Coordinate project construction with SR520 construction, to minimize impacts to traffic and surrounding neighborhoods.

PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS CONTINUES: On November 16, 2010, Kirkland City Council approved the Principles of Agreement for the South Kirkland Park and Ride by a margin of 5-2. The Principles of Agreement were then sent before the Bellevue City Council who also gave their approval on January 3, 2011. According to City of Kirkland Senior Planner Ms. Dorian Collins, a review of zoning restrictions will be conducted for the site. Two public information workshops will be held to involve citizens in the process. The workshops are to be held January 20, 2011, 7 p.m. at Northwest University, and on January 25, 2011, 7 p.m. at Kirkland City Hall. Additional information can be found the City of Kirkland website.

After code amendments are drafted and presented to a planning commission and the Houghton Community Council, there will be a public hearing on March 24, 2011. Amendments are expected to be adopted by June 2011.

FEDERAL GRANT : Regarding the sought-after $6.25 million federal grant, an online project fact sheet from the City of Kirkland stated that the federal grant agreement “calls for” the added parking to be built before tolling of the nearby State Route 520 bridge begins in Spring of 2011. But at the same time, the Kirkland document also states that completion of the planned additional parking spaces will require costs to be shared with the parties to an as-yet unfinalized business partnership to construct the housing units. Sources clarify that the term “calls for” is not to be understood as “requires that,” but also that it is unclear whether the federal grant – considered vital to the development – will ultimately be secured. If a request for proposals (RFP) for the housing component can go out this spring, that could increase the possibility of the grant being secured.

With reporting assistance from Matt Rosenberg.

Figure E-2, Emissions Reductions Required To Meet Objectives

BACKGROUND: Accessible, economical, and effective, the energy infrastructure of the United States is one of the most advanced in the world. Still there is room for improvement. Among the inefficiencies in U.S. energy infrastructure are: a reliance on foreign sources, volatility in the price of energy, consumption of natural resources better used for other purposes, and the massive amount of CO2 emitted by the burning of coal for electricity. The report addresses these insecurities by outlining a multi-faceted technology based strategy for overhauling the U.S. energy infrastructure.

KEY LINK: “Transforming the U.S. Energy Infrastructure,” L. E. Demic, July, 2010, Idaho National Laboratory. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.

KEY FINDINGS

• “The [Obama/Biden] Administration and Congress have proposed national initiatives for significant reductions in GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions over the next four decades.” These goals include: reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, increasing the use of renewable energy by 2025, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050.
• Based on annual reports issued by the Department of Energy detailing the energy production and consumption in the U.S., the INL report projects that current trends indicate the nation will not meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives of the Administration and Congress (Figure 2-2).
• Currently the U.S. is among one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG), accounting for one-third of world emissions. 84% of these emissions are from the energy sector.

The report advocates a five point technology based strategy to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

• Take advantage of improving efficiency in energy production, consumption and conservation to reduce energy consumption at an annual rate of about one-quarter of one percent.
• Support continued adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles in place of conventional vehicles and bio-diesel in place of conventional diesel; continue to improve standards for vehicle mileage and vehicle tailpipe emissions; by 2050 reduce consumption of gasoline and diesel by 6.5 million barrels per day, or about 70% of 2009 consumption of imported crude oil.
• For electricity production, increase the use of renewable energy sources such as hydro-electric, wind, solar, and biomass, in place of coal plants.
• Employ nuclear energy, in the form of high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology, to replace the burning of fossil fuels in commercial and industrial settings and to provide a GHG emission-free source of energy for production of synthetic fuels from coal and biomass. About 260 2,400-megawatt thermal HTGR plants supplying energy to a wide range of industrial processes and about 25 13,200 megawatt thermal HTGR plants would need to be deployed by 2050.
• Increase the use of nuclear power and, if technically viable, coal and gas-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), as replacements for conventional coal fired and natural gas plants for the production of electricity, making substantial inroads by 2050.

The reports concludes:

• To implement this strategy would cost approximately $3.85 trillion over four decades, yielding an increase of approximately 54% in the cost of energy by 2050. The report maintains that the technology based strategy would prove more effective and economical than other legislative proposals. In addition to addressing current energy infrastucture vulnerabilities, the technology based strategy would NOT result in a flow of capital out of the country, unlike current Congressional legislation being considered. The strategy would promote job growth in the energy and associated sectors, and create predictable and gradual energy cost increases.

KEY DOCUMENT: Parking Restrictions Amendments, Ordinance. Kent City Council Agenda. September 21, 2010. (Pdf file of full meeting agenda packet; in directory on left, click on “Parking Restrictions Amendments, Ordinance” for instant access).

KEY FINDINGS:

• The Police Department and Public Safety Commission have recommended lowering the penalty for two-hour parking violations from the current $50 to $30. But to offset revenues lost from reducing the two-hour parking penalty, the Police Department has advocated new parking restrictions and monetary penalties.
• By incorporating certain parts of state law (RCWs 46.61.570 and 46.61.575) into the Kent City Code, the City will now charge $50, rather than $20, as previously, for: parking RVs, boats, and trailers on City streets for more than twenty-four hours; parking in multiple stalls; parking in a bicycle lane; performing repairs on a vehicle while parked on city streets; advertising a vehicle while parked on a City street; parking too close to a stop sign, crosswalk or fire hydrant, etc; and chain parking, or moving a car from time-limited street parking spot to another spot on the same side of the street in the same block.
• The City Finance Department has determined that the cost of issuing a parking ticket is approximately $54.63. By enforcing the new higher fines, the City “recoups more of its actual costs incurred in enforcing” parking violations.

The ordinance passed on September 21, 2010 by unanimous vote by the Kent City Council. The ordinance is to take effect within 30 days of passage.

KEY LINK: Washington State Department of Early Learning Review, 6/16/10, Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee

KEY FINDINGS:

• Overall, the audit found that “the DEL has complied with legislative requirements,” but there are several respects in which improvements are needed.
• Management of DEL programs remains segmented and the health and safety standards for licensed childcare and Early Childhood Education Assistance Program (ECEAP) have not been integrated.
• JLARC found the childcare facility assessment standards to be ambiguous and unclear. The language and criteria of the standards should be refined.
• After consolidating the three previous programs into DEL, administrative expenditures jumped from $1.8 million in fiscal year (FY) 2006 to $8.5 million in FY 2009.
• In order to keep their licenses to operate, the more than 7,600 childcare facilities regulated by the DEL must comply with an array of health and safety standards. For the facilities sampled, JLARC found that full compliance was low both before the creation of DEL (2005) and after (2008): 9 percent before DEL, 13 percent after DEL. On average, facilities met 14 of the 17 standards.
• DEL monitors a child care center at least once a year without consideration of a facility’s previous compliance with standards. JLARC recommends that DEL could more efficiently monitor facilities by focusing on low-compliance licensees.
• To help facilities meet compliance standards, DEL contracts for technical assistance and training. But there is no policy to determine how aid is administered. JLARC recommends implementing a policy that disperses assistance as needed.
• The assessment of health and safety at child care facilities conducted by JLARC is the only statewide data of its kind. DEL should regularly conduct assessments of compliance at childcare facilities.
• When child care facilities receive subsidies from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), the facility must keep and submit child attendance records to verify the subsidies. JLARC found that 18 percent of facilities kept inadequate records, and recommends a policy that calls for DSHS to be notified whenever a facility is noncompliant.
• “The review found that childcare co-payments are affordable for 90 percent of Washington families receiving childcare subsidies.

On June 28, 2010, DEL Director Bette Hyde issued a response to the JLARC review. The DEL either concurred or partially concurred with the recommendations made by JLARC. The DEL provides goes on to provide details of actions taken to meet the JLARC recommendations: standardizing data collection with new technology, committing to examine the cost and benefits of differential monitoring, regular communication and meetings regarding child care resources and referral efforts, and agreeing to form a policy for notifying DSHS of child care facility non-compliances.

Crimes are depicted on the interactive map as categorized icons, and upon selection display details of the incident and a link to the police report. To access the police report, users are asked to register an e-mail and password and agree to the terms and conditions. The SPD has stated that not all crimes are reported, as is the case for some Type II crimes and crimes where there is need to be sensitive to the identity of victims and officers.

Two years in development, the SPD crime map is a step forward for police department transparency and civic awareness. From monitoring neighborhood criminal activity to making real estate decisions, the map can be a valuable tool for citizens. Below follows a brief guide to the map and its features.

HOW TO USE THE SITE

• Go directly to the key link, the crime map site.
• Navigate the map to the desired area using the arrow keys, or clicking and dragging the map.
• Zoom in or out using the “+” and “-” buttons located in the upper left corner of the map, or by keying “+” or “-,” or by double clicking on the desired location.
• To target a specific address or neighborhood, use the search tool located in the upper left of the page. This allows you to “Enter a Seattle Address” in a field or select a “Neighborhood” from a drop down menu.
• The “Services” mode marks the public service locations in the selected area (Ex. fire and police stations, schools, parks, utilities). In addition to their location on the map, the services are listed in a table below the map. This table can be toggled to display the areas “Elected Officials” and links to “Community” related resources (events, blogs).
• The “911 Incident Responses” mode marks the locations and category (e.g. personal crime, drugs and vice, property crime, transportation, fire) of 911 incident responses. Navigation is done in the same fashion, mouse, arrows, “+” and “-,” and the search field. To the left of the table it is possible to modify the type of responses to be displayed. In the lower left corner, it is possible to set the time range of incident responses displayed. By clicking on one of the icons representing an Incident Response, a window is displayed describing the type of incident, CAD Event Number, location, and time.
• The “Police Reports” mode is much the same as 911 Incident Responses. Navigation is the same, users can select the type of report to be displayed, and by clicking on the icons on the map, a window is displayed describing the type of incident, GO Number, location, time, and a link to the police report. The incidents displayed on the map are the events processed in the last 12 hours.
• To view a police report, you must register with the site and log-in. NOTE: Some reports may not be displayed. This can be due to the nature of the crime. Serious offenses take up to three days to be posted. The report may be withheld if it is deemed to be a risk to the victims or officers.
• The “Statistics” mode displays month-by-month crime statistics for the city, or for individual police beats. The graph of statistics is displayed the map, and the controls for “Citywide” and “Police Beat” specification is at the upper left hand corner of the graph. The sidebar at the left of the map and graph contains the location search field, and a drop down menu that allows you to isolate a specific type of crime to view the statistics of. Map navigation is the same.

After allegations that the station was not complying with CPB and Communications Act of 1934 requirements, the CPB Office of Inspector General conducted an examination of the station and submitted a report to CPB management on March 31, 2010. Specifically, the examination sought to determine whether KDNA: (a) made inappropriate expenditure of CPB grant funds, (b) improperly claimed non-federal financial support on fiscal year 2008 annual financial reports, (c) kept inaccurate financial records for fiscal year 2009, and (d) insufficiently responded to public requests for information and open public meetings as required by CPB and the Communications Act.

KEY LINK: Examination of Northwest Communities’ Education Center, KDNA-FM, Report No. ASR911-1002

KEY FINDINGS: For the period ending September 30, 2008, the examination of KDNA conducted by the CPB’s Office of Inspector General found several issues:

1. $58,587 in grant funds were used to pay salaries and fringe benefits of a KDNA producer and news director rather than for funding national programming.
2. KDNA over-reported non-federal financial support by $494,539 for fiscal year 2008, which could lead to CPB making excess grant payments in the future.
3. KDNA’s financial records of CPB revenues and expenditures for the calendar year 2008 were inaccurate.
4. KDNA did not adequately comply with Communications Act requirements. KDNA failed to provide the public with information regarding public meetings and financial information. The examination also found that KDNA did not follow CPB’s requirements for: holding open public meetings; maintaining open financial records, equal employment opportunity information, and information on donors and political activities.

Based on the findings, the Office of Inspector General made the following recommendations to CPB management:

(a) For the misuse of grant funds from CPB: The misused amount of $58,587 should be recovered. KDNA should establish a spending control system. KDNA should report how it spent funds from 2009 and how it will in 2010.

(b) For improperly inflating the amount of non-federal financial support on its annual financial report: The amount over-payed by CPB to the station as a result of falsely claimed non-federal financial support ($30,723), should be recovered by CPB. CPB should require KDNA to resubmit annual financial reports. CPB should require KDNA to put in place new controls over annual financial report preparation and have reports prepared by station officials.

(c) For KDNA’s inaccurate accounting records involving CPB income and payment: CPB should require KDNA to reconcile accounting differences with that of CPB for calendar year 2008, and accurately record the station’s CPB-funded expenditures for fiscal year 2009.

(d) For non-compliance with Communications Act requirements, CPB should require KDNA to: Revise policies concerning open meetings, equal employment opportunities, and donor lists. Follow CPB’s open financial records expectations and provide documentation to CPB that verifies KDNA’s adherence to these requirements. Until compliance with these requirements are met, the Office of Inspector General recommends that CPB withhold grants for FY 2010.

STATION’S RESPONSE:

On March 28, 2010 NCEC Interim Executive Director Mirta Laura Contreras responded to the examination findings in a letter to the CPB Office of Inspector General.

(a) KDNA officials have refuted claims of inappropriate spending, providing documentation they hope will prove that grant funds were used for national programming. Officials said that they are in the process of developing controls for accounting and bookkeeping and that grant funds in 2010 will be used for national programming. The CPB Office of Inspector General considers the issue of misuse of CPB grant funds unresolved.

(b) Regarding improperly claiming non-federal financial support, KDNA officials acknowledged reporting errors, and agreed to submit a revised 2008 annual financial report and impose new controls over report preparation. The CPB Office of Inspector General considers these issues resolved pending implementation.

(c) KDNA has not responded to the recommendations concerning inaccurate record-keeping because it was not included in the report that was given to KDNA. But KDNA has since acknowledged the need to accurately account for CPB expenditures.

(d) KDNA officials acknowledged the need for policies that ensure compliance with Communications Act and CPB requirements. KDNA claims that it will maintain records of its efforts for at least three years. The CPB Office of Inspector General considers these issues resolved pending implementation.

BACKGROUND: The ordinance comes at a time where municipalities are making more and more data “open” to encourage civic participation in politics and government transparency. The proliferation of web and mobile technology has allowed cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Seattle to release public data to software developers, and numerous applications have been created. King County Executive Dow Constantine has been an advocate for greater constituent access to government, greater government transparency, and facilitating opportunities for private-sector software developers to build applications based on government data sets.

KEY DOCUMENT: King County Ordinance 16838, May 17, 2010.

KEY FINDINGS: The ordinance requires the county to strive to publish existing, high value data sets appropriate for unrestricted public access on a single web site. By August 1, 2010, a list of the initial high-value data sets and procedural documentation are to be filed with the council clerk. The web site is to be online by November 1, 2010.

High value data sets are defined as related to core county services, and which “improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations, increase government accountability and responsiveness or create economic opportunity.” High value data sets, as defined by the ordinance, will not typically include documents, emails, or calendars. The “open format” requirement means no particular software or hardware should be required to view a data set. The open data Web site will include information on each data set, terms of use, information contact, and a mechanism for public input on usefulness and prioritization of initial data sets.

RELATED: Although the official open data Web site is not yet live, more information is available at a working Web page on the initiative, which includes a press release on and video of a June 8, 2010 open data workshop hosted by King County.