Citizen Contributes by Making Video
Outlines Their View on the Recent Happenings
We were so moved when we received this video montage the other day that at a concerned citizen put together. We met this citizen by going door to door, and we were so surprised to see the work and love that went into this. We believe it truly showcases how many families feel about their connection to Blaine, and why they chose to live here. This citizen felt like it was something that they could do to help contribute to the community during this time. The outpouring of support and unity in the community has been wonderful.
Blaine’s Mayor Bans All Public Comments At Meetings
Falsely Claims She’s Following in the Footsteps of Bellingham And Whatcom​
Shush everyone. The mayor doesn't want to hear your voices at city council meetings. Obviously, it's "inefficient" to hear the voices of the public for a few minutes every month. There are clearly more important matters to attend to in our town. Blaine’s mayor has now banned all oral public comments at city council meetings and she lists as her first reasoning that she’s following in the footsteps of Bellingham and Whatcom. This is simply not accurate, yet the mayor continues to go unchecked on the matter.
In what appears to be a first, Blaine’s “Honorable” Madam Mayor, Mary Lou Steward, wrote a newsletter dated March 6, 2024 to the citizens – another version of the one-way communication that she seems to prefer. Citizens have been concerned about the abrupt stop to citizen input and have written letters to the editor in the local newspaper, and also letters to the city council – all to no avail.
​
Specifically, in her newsletter the mayor of Blaine incorrectly states: “Regarding the City Council Agenda, after careful consideration, I made the decision to join both Bellingham and Whatcom City Councils in suspending oral public comment from our City Council agenda. We will resume it at a later time when we feel it is safe and effective to do so”.
The full body of the newsletter can be found here and additionally embedded on this website as a PDF:
https://ci.blaine.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/20210/March-2024?bidId=
The mayor falsely stated that she is following in the footsteps of Bellingham’s city council and Whatcom City Council where she states that they both have banned oral public comments at council meetings.
Unfortunately, this simply is not true regarding Bellingham and Whatcom, based on our research. A quick call to the City of Bellingham confirms that they do in fact have a public comment period at every city council meeting. Additionally, so as to leave no stone unturned, a search of the City of Bellingham website also confirms our research. There are forty minutes of public comments at the city council meeting on March 11, 2024 (five days after her newsletter) and robust public comments at every previous meeting too in recent memory. These include all meetings this year: March 11th, Feb 26th, Feb 12th, Jan 29th, Jan 8th, and every meeting in 2023. We question that if it was so easy for us to verify this with Bellingham, why wouldn’t our mayor?
For those interested, here is the link to Bellingham’s video recordings of their public comment periods at every meeting for the past two years:
​
The mayor mentions that she also joined “Whatcom City Councils” in this ban. There isn’t a Whatcom “City Council” - there is Whatcom COUNTY Council (since Whatcom is a county and not a city), which by the way, also allows for oral public comment. At every meeting – as they always have (they call it “Open Session”). They are currently reviewing their Zoom procedures for public comments (due to “Zoom bombing”) but still allow Zoom participation to people having “any reason making attending a meeting difficult”. They recently had a working retreat where they came up with a plan to implement at the next meeting to open up Zoom to ALL members of the community (with safeguards in place).
To save the honorable mayor from doing her own research (in the interest of government efficiency), here is a link to the most recent “open session” at Whatcom County Council.
https://whatcom.granicus.com/player/clip/1093?view_id=1&redirect=true
(go to the one minute 55 second mark)
To be thorough, in case the mayor meant other cities in Whatcom County, we also verified that every city in Whatcom County also proudly allows for oral public comment at their city council meetings: Lynden allows public comments (called Citizen Comments) for four minutes, Nooksack allows for public comment both in person and on Zoom, and Mt. Vernon also allows public comments in person and on Zoom. Admirably, Mt. Vernon even offers a real-time translator to translate a citizen’s comments to English if feel like they can’t effectively communicate in English. Ferndale offers both in person public comments and remote public comments via Microsoft Teams. Everson allows for in person public comment as well. We verified that all of the cities in the county do in fact continue to offer oral public comment and this is accurate as of March 14th 2024.
Why would the mayor falsely use Bellingham and Whatcom as justification for her actions? What consequences should she face by falsely claiming that Bellingham and Whatcom have also banned public comment? We brought this to Blaine’s attention more than a week ago hoping for, at a minimum, a retraction of her statement. Instead, what we received was silence, which has been typical to ALL of our concerns. We also sent our letter to the city attorney, Blaine’s city council, and the Bellingham mayor and the entire Whatcom county council. The citizens still haven’t received an apology or retraction from the mayor.
Why would the mayor ban all speech at meetings anyway? It seems that she didn’t like the content of the speech of concerned citizens and she stated that allowing speech was “inefficient” and “disruptive”. The hallmark of democracy is to encourage varying viewpoints and citizens are the counterbalance to the elected officials. Is this the official stance of Blaine’s government that hearing citizens’ concerns is inefficient? Should we, as a public, be concerned when the government bans all speech at meetings?
What About Our Newspaper, The Northern Light? Wouldn’t They Report On This?
The Northern Light published a link to the mayor’s newsletter and referenced her shutting down public comments stating that the mayor: “included brief updates on the mayor’s decision to suspend oral comment at city council meetings…” We found it odd that the Northern Light wouldn’t fact check the link that they posted, so we copied our fact checking to the editor and reporter at the paper. They also never responded. It seems that the local paper would rather simply regurgitate the message from the city than to fact check the newsletter for the citizens prior to publishing. Does the local paper have an ethical obligation to their readers to fact check the government before going to press on such important issues? Once we notified the paper of the inaccuracies that the mayor stated, should the paper have questioned the mayor on her statements?
When governments remove citizens from the legislative process and lean on flawed reasoning like it being in the “best interests of our community in mind“ or inaccurately stating that it’s what the neighboring communities are doing, this should be a warning sign. Clearly, this city council writes their own rules, can operate outside of societal norms, and will justify their actions by trying to sell the community that they are removing citizen input in the best interest of the citizens. After all, why would citizens need a voice anyway. In their own Rules of Procedure the first paragraph encourages citizen voices by stating “so that all voices can be heard.”
As a friendly reminder, this is the same mayor who has only had one town hall meeting in her entire time in office. Town halls are important as they are the only forum where citizens can ask questions of their government and get real time answers. In a typical city government meeting, the governing body sets aside time for “public comments” where citizens have a specified time to speak about whatever is on their mind – typically issues of concern to the community. This mayor refuses to have town halls and now has banned the only voice that the people have in the governmental process.
We have been told that if we want to have input, to simply write to the city council. While written submissions are a valuable component of civic engagement, relying solely on them, to the exclusion of oral public comments at city council meetings, significantly diminishes the effectiveness and richness of democratic participation. Oral public comments offer unique advantages that written submissions cannot fully replicate, underscoring why their removal poses a threat to the fabric of local governance.
​
Oral comments bring immediacy and personalization to the issues being discussed. They allow individuals to convey their emotions, urgency, and personal stories in a way that written words cannot. This emotional and human element can be crucial in helping elected officials understand the real-world impact of their decisions. When citizens stand before the council to speak, they embody the very constituents those decisions will affect, making the democratic process more tangible and immediate.
Moreover, oral comments foster a sense of community and collective engagement. The exclusion of oral public comments represents a significant step back from the ideals of participatory democracy, where open dialogue and direct interaction between citizens and their government are key to effective governance.
​
This mayor has blazed a dangerous new trail for our city. Her newsletter appears to be her own propaganda piece that some people will take at face value. We like to fact check. Welcome to Blaine…where Mayor Steward simply silences the citizens. Just keep quiet everyone – the government has work to do without your unimportant voices. What could you possibly contribute anyways?
Conflict Of Interest?
Is Council Member Mike Hill Conflicted?
Hill Owns 6.11 Acres Bordering Developer’s Property
Continually Votes on Developer’s Projects
Disclaimer – This article will state clear facts such as property ownership, the location of a developer’s property, the location of Mike Hill's property, and dates of votes by Hill. It also asks questions and doesn’t make any claim or assertions on the legality of the situation. That’s not our role. We discover, report, and ask questions only.
We’re kicking off our “Conflict of Interest?” series with Council Member Mike Hill. In the past, we’ve reported on Hill in a humorous manner, often and affectionately referring to Hill as “Show Me the Money Mike.” One can often spot him around town enjoying his opulent lifestyle with his flashy cars. In news reports, he states that he makes $1 million a year selling souvenirs at his local gas station. Some think of Hill as the local business guru (every small town needs one, right?). He’s also quite the colorful figure. He’s the one that built a fireplace near the gas pumps that everyone seems to enjoy, and he has gone on profanity laced tirades at city council meetings (which the city’s official audio is conveniently garbled, but the Northern Light quotes the profanities verbatim).
All kidding aside, our citizen investigators discovered that Council Member Mike Hill owns 6.11 acres which directly borders developers Skip and Katie Jansen’s East Maple Ridge development (see PDF and map). Mike Hill’s acreage spans two plots of land, including a 4.83 main plot and an extension of that land measuring 1.28 acres. Remember that Hill has used his voting power on East Maple Ridge. TWICE. The first time was on February 27, 2023, and most recently on December 11, 2023. Both times, Hill voted to approve his developer neighbor’s next phase of development. The most recent vote was also the same night that a land gift from the Jansen’s (that we value at $220,000) was presented and then three minutes and fifty-eight seconds later, city council voted to approve the next phase. Not only was a gift accepted and the next phase voted on, but Hill voted on this development community where he owns adjoining property.
A question we ask is this: would a reasonable person think it is appropriate for Hill to vote on ANYTHING in this development when he owns land next door? Here is a graphic of Hill’s property in relation to developer Jansen’s East Maple Ridge.
In East Maple Ridge, plots of land are about 0.12 acres and sell for roughly $190,000 (without a home – land only). Would Mike Hill’s property measuring 6.11 acres be more valuable when his property is 50 times the typical size in that area? At the end of any current development (anywhere), could adjoining significant acreage properties be potential targets for expansion by a developer? Could adjoining properties have a significant value increase to a developer interested in expansion?
We know that Mike Hill has been quoted as stating that developers are the “customers” of the city (stated in his bid for mayor). With this mindset, could we expect Hill to think of these questions himself? After all, we’re just ordinary citizen investigators and reporters, not local business gurus, and those questions crossed our minds.
We’ve confirmed that the city council does not have a code of ethics.
We’ve also confirmed that city council does not have an independent ethical review board like many cities do. We have suggested this to city council with the reasoning being: "If it's what is best for the people, then you must."
It’s like a police department without having an internal affairs division. The only thing that the city does have is their own “Rules of Procedure” which addresses conflicts of interest in Rule 21:
“Each member present shall vote on all questions put to the City Council except on matters in which he or she has been disqualified for a conflict of interest or under the appearance of fairness doctrine. Such member shall disqualify himself or herself prior to any discussion of the matter and shall leave the City Council Chambers.”
It seems that city council wrote their own rules, and they intended for there to be no conflicts of interest, no matter the situation with the voting council member. Have they ever disciplined themselves? We asked this question and the city replied that they have not. That brings up the following question: If the city cannot discipline themselves, who could? We think that we already know the answer to this question.
​
Another question we ask is: did Mayor Mary Lou Steward know about Mike Hill’s adjoining property and still let him vote on the matter? We know that Hill disclosed this property on his required financial disclosure that he filed with the state. As the head of the local government, can we assume that Mayor Steward knew of Hill’s adjoining property and still let him vote? Did other council members know of this matter and stay silent? Hypothetically, if a vote was ever deemed to be unethical or illegal, would all of the approvals for a developer be overturned? We don’t know. We just like to ask questions.
Obviously, we aren’t attorneys and don’t know the law, but here are more questions that we are asking. Is it against the law to use public office for personal financial gain? We’re not saying this happened, but we’re just asking a question. Is there a “conflict of interest doctrine”? Does the Washington State Supreme Court Case of Smith vs. Centralia prohibit conflicts of interest? According to MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center), “the common law principle preventing municipal officers from adjudicating their own cause is a ‘a maxim as old as the law itself.’
Do any of the council members have a conflict of interest? Are there state laws against conflicts of interest? Are there federal laws? Asking questions is a healthy thing in a democracy. We’ve asked questions to the Blaine government, but we don’t get many answers. It’s amazing how other arms of government are very receptive, but our own elected officials seem to have a bad case of muteness.
If you would like to email city council your thoughts on this matter you can email: citycouncil@cityofblaine.com
All of the issues that we have discovered in our citizen led investigation are being reviewed elsewhere. These are the types of places that ask harder questions than we do.
The Professor and all of SaveBlaine.com
Seekers of Truth And Justice
Approximately $500,000 in Gifts
A Breakdown
Three Minutes Fifty-Eight Seconds
The time between a $220,000* gift
and a Vote for the Developer
(*estimated value)
I think it’s important before we get into the breakdown of the approximately $500,000 in gifts to give some background info on our growing group. We are a group of volunteer citizen investigators, journalists, and watchdogs. We have spent over 2,000 combined hours uncovering the truth behind some questionable decisions by Blaine’s city council and our city hall. We’ve poured over thousands of pages of documents, listened to countless hours of audio recordings, knocked on doors, made hundreds of phone calls, and generally dedicated our lives to helping Blaine to return to a democracy that’s “For the People.” We have individuals from the military, technology experts, artists, writers, financial experts, and researchers. Our group has two main focuses: the first is investigating the questionable ethical practices by Blaine's city council and city staff. The second is focusing on the environmental impacts of large developments on our watershed and aquifer.
​
Here is a quick summary for those who are new to this cause. Local land developers, Katie and Skip Jansen, have two projects underway in Blaine. The first is East Maple Ridge, which is in phase three of development. This development is 88 acres and the project is a planned community of single-family homes and multifamily housing which started in 2021. The second project is East Harbor Hills, which is just west of Harvey road and North of H Street and occupies 144 acres. Jansen’s plan is to build a large mobile home park on top of our aquifer. There has been no environmental impact study done on it. The city just passed an amendment to make it all possible. Jansen will own the land and rent it to people who bring their own mobile homes to the pad. Many of the environmentally focused individuals in our group have grave concerns on large developments and the impact it will have on a protected groundwater region of our city.
​
Yeah, but what’s this $500,000 I keep hearing about?
Below is a quick breakdown of the gifts from Katie and Skip Jansen with a quick note on the status and the valuation of the gifts. Most of the valuations we've had to estimate. We've asked the city for valuations, but they have not responded. We welcome the city's input and will post it here. We’ll do a further breakdown later in this article.
$250,000 Land Gift – the city does not dispute this as a gift (we estimated the value – the city has not placed a value) Jansen and others listed on the deed gifted this.
$220,000 Land Gift – the city does not dispute this as a gift (we estimate the value – city won’t place a value)
$30,000 worth of 400 Tons of Rocks – Not disputed as a gift and valuation provided by city.
$5,000-$10,000 Land clearing – This gift was presented to the city council by a city official. Six months later a city official creates a document to claim it wasn’t a gift.
$10,000 Transport of 400 tons of rocks - The city cannot tell us who transported the rocks. Eyewitnesses saw Skip Jansen’s trucks transporting the rocks at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning in what appears to be a clandestine operation. This same eyewitness called Jansen and complained that his trucks ruined the roads with the weight of these rocks. According to an interview with the eyewitness, Jansen told her it was not his problem. Again, we estimated the amount, since the city is not admitting to anything.
​
Breakdown of the gifts with more detail:
-
$250,000 land gift. On October 21, 2021, Katie and Skip Jansen (along with others) donated 2.2 acres to the city in their East Maple Ridge Development for the city to use as a park. This happened substantially before all of the required votes on the development were placed by city council. This gift has not been disputed by the city, and we have the county records (referenced below in PDFs). They show the signatures of Skip Jansen, the Mayor and a few other investors who held the deed to the property. As for the valuation, the county assessor places a value of $173,000 on the property which we believe is substantially low.
Our valuation of at least $250,000 is based on the fact that the Jansen’s have sold lots that are 0.12 acres in their development for at or around $190,000 (as of 2021). Our logic is that if 0.12 acres in the same development sells for around $190K, then certainly a 2.2 acre lot in the same community would be worth more. We feel that $250,000 is a conservative estimate. We’ve asked the city for an independent appraiser’s valuation, but we have not heard back, and we don’t expect a reply.
-
$220,000 Land Gift. Three Minutes and Fifty Eight Seconds from Gift Presentation to Favorable Vote. That’s a catchy title, isn’t it? Imagine witnessing this in person. That’s exactly what happened on Monday December 11, 2023 at the city council meeting. More on that in a bit. Here’s the background. Remember the 2.2 acre gift above? The Jansens gifted that property for a park in East Maple Ridge. On December 11, 2023 city council had a decision to make on the property. Jansen was asking for approval of phase three of the development. This gift is a much smaller parcel (about 6800 square feet), but what gives it a simpler valuation is that it's a plot of land that sits next to other lots that will be sold which are the same size and on the same street. Essentially Jansen is gifting a plot of land that he could have sold at the end of a cul-de-sac as he will to the other properties on the street. Smaller lots that weren't on a cul-de-sac sold for $190,000 in 2021 in the same development.
Alex Wenger is Blaine’s “Community Development Services” Director (basically a planning and permitting director). He makes recommendations to city council on what to do with permitting of building projects. During the city council meeting, Wenger showcases a power point presentation to the city council on the reasons why city council should approve this next phase for the Jansens. Toward the end of the presentation, he mentions that the Jansens are gifting another plot of land to extend the park. He actually used the word “deeding” and avoided what we believe is the more accurate term of “gifting”. Three minutes and fifty eight seconds later, city council votes to approve the project. During that three minutes and fifty eight seconds something extraordinary happened. One city councilmember had the strength to question the ethics of this gift. That was Richard May. We commend him for that. Richard May actually asked "and that's a lawful thing for a developer to do?" Wenger replied, “Absolutely.” He then garbled something about it being a city park. What was extremely disappointing to our group is that the other six city council members did not speak up. None of them questioned the ethical implications of the gift or even discussed rejecting it altogether. It was glaringly obvious to us a gift was being announced and less than four minutes later was the unanimous vote. Here is unedited audio of that exchange:
3. $30,000 of 400 Tons of Rocks. On December 27th, 2022 at a 4 minute city council meeting, the city met at 9am (not the usual 6pm time the public is used to) to very briefly accept another gift from the Jansens. The estimate of $30,000 is the figure provided by the city. We’ve widely reported on this gift, but here is a summary.
The city was involved in a reconstruction of their shoreline (Shoreline Redevelopment Project). Part of this involved placing hundreds of tons of rocks on the shoreline to rebuild the barrier between the land and the water. Katie and Skip Jansen were aware of this and they had hundreds of tons of rocks that they unearthed in their East Maple Ridge Project. The city had already budgeted for the purchase of rocks before it was offered by the Jansens. At this short meeting, the mayor thanks the Jansens profusely and wants it entered into the record. Again, giving gifts is good, but the timing of this gift brings up serious ethical questions. The Jansens had already initiated a controversial request for a text amendment change to the city’s zoning code to allow for large mobile home parks. After receiving gift after gift, could a city council ever be impartial in their voting?
During the short meeting, a city official even refers to the Jansens as a “gift horse” and Wenger states that the Jansens have more rocks for the city to use if needed. It is my opinion that the city should have rejected the gift to stay impartial and purchased the rocks as they had already budgeted for. Here is the audio and PDF below.
4. $5,000 to $10,000 land clearing gift. In May of 2023, the city’s own Vice-Chair for the Parks Board gives testimony to city council that Katie and Skip Jansen gave a “wonderful gift to the city.” It turns out that the Vice-Chair for the Parks Board is the Jansen’s next door neighbor. He explains that the Jansens donated their crews and heavy equipment to clear land including underbrush, trees, and removed everything at no cost to the city. Minutes later, Skip Jansen spoke to city council and never disputed this as a gift. The city later created a document to dispute the gift long after all of the required votes were cast in the Jansens' favor. We believe the Parks Board official when he declared it was a gift. When later asked by our investigator for further documentation to dispute the gift, the city could provide none. It's clear that city council never refuted this gift at the meeting. This is a ballpark estimate as the city hasn't been forthcoming in giving us a valuation. See audio below and see the city's colored in document.
5. $10,000 rock transport. We’ve also widely reported on this, and the city has never directly said whether Jansen did or did not transport the rocks. What’s the big deal anyway? Well, according to the city’s contract on the acceptance of the rocks (PDF in section 3), it clearly states that the city was responsible for the transport of the rocks. The would be a sizable undertaking. We asked the simple question, “Who transported the rocks?” The city has never said that Jansen transported them. They have also never said that he didn’t. In fact, they never answered the question. Instead they sent us a contract that they had with Premium Services. The contract with Premium Services states in part that Premium is responsible for “furnishing and placement” of rocks but never specifically mentions picking up the rocks at Jansen’s property and transporting them.
Our valuation of the rock cost is a ballpark figure. Quick research states that a dump truck can hold 14 tons. This would be 28 dump truck loads. Then, there is the cost to load the dump truck, and the cost to unload the 400 tons. Our estimate could be significantly off but we are confident that the cost is a substantial sum. If the city wants to provide a valuation, we'll post it here. Here is the eyewitness audio testimony given at a city council meeting.
We hope this summary helps give perspective on some of things that we’ve investigated (more to come). The ethical and legal ramifications of this situation are not for us to decide. Do your own research and arrive at your own opinions. If you are interested in helping out, you can find us at the city council meetings. We are not hard to miss – we’re the ones holding the signs. Come join us and hold up a sign and make your voices heard. You’ll notice the town being painted red with our signs. Thank you to all of the people who have welcomed us into your homes with hugs, handshakes, and tears as we all stand together now. Together, we are strong and big changes are coming. For the people.
Note to city council - if you have any official appraisals, like we've asked for many times, you know how to contact us. If you'd like to disclose more gifts, like we've repeatedly asked, now is the time.
​
The Professor and all of SaveBlaine.com
Seekers of Truth
Phase Two Begins
Save Blaine's Coordinated Campaign
Moves Into Action Phase
Decamber 10, 2023
BLAINE, WA
Our citizen group has begun to move into Phase Two of our strategic plan. Phase One consisted primarily of discovery, investigation and reporting. What we've discovered in the past six weeks has been more than any of us were expecting. Our mantra through this process has been "the truth leads us where the truth leads - wherever that is." This was an important principle for our group. We approached the situation with an open mind about the people and entities we were investigating and let the investigation and documentation speak for itself. Our findings took us in a direction that we never expected. Our investigation suggests that our city government has been operating in their own best interest and not for that of the people. It also suggests that the city council has no code of ethics or independent ethical review board that many cities have. Essentially, it's a city that polices itself with no independent oversight. When city council breaks their own rules, state laws, or standard ethical practices, the people have entrusted city council to discipline themselves. It's like when a kid is home alone and steals a cookie from a cookie jar - can we really expect the kid to put himself in a timeout?
​
Phase two has now begun. Without giving away the specifics, this phase can be defined as our "action" phase. Stay tuned. In the meantime, please enjoy the video that our team created.
​
Mayor Limits Speech - Again - Click Here
City Council Bans Zoom, Then Refuses to Hear Recorded Comments From Absent Citizens. Here is the speech that they rejected.
A Deep Dive into
“A Wonderful Gift” – “No it’s Not a Gift”
Could it go down in the History Books as
"The Crayon Coverup?"
November 24, 2023
BLAINE, WA
Ahh… the spin cycle. Forget that pile of laundry that we’ve all been putting off this time of year. It’s Blaine’s new version of events after the fact which makes us feel like we’re in the local laundromat. To some, this might seem like a perpetual spin cycle…it’s a gift, no it’s not a gift, is it a gift? It’s enough to make one’s head spin.
For a brief recap, at the May 23, 2023 city council meeting, the Vice Chair of the Parks and Cemetery Board spoke before city council to thank developers, Skip and Katie Jansen, for their “wonderful gift to the city” (see audio). The Jansens donated their crew and heavy trucks to clean up trees and underbrush, at “no cost to the city,” said the vice-chair. Imagine how much that must have saved the city! This would not be a cheap endeavor. The Jansens were no stranger to the city, since they were trying to change the city’s zoning code to allow them to build a large rental mobile home park. Surprisingly, this same vice chair who gets up to thank the Jansens profusely is actually thanking his next door neighbor. According to the addresses that they both listed at the meeting, they are just one digit off (both being odd numbers). What a coincidence! Thank goodness our mayor gets us to state our address at each of these city council meetings so the citizens could make this connection!
One point that we’ve continuously made is that philanthropy is a positive thing; however, the city should have policies in place to evaluate gifts, and reject them where the optics might raise ethical questions from their voters. Also, when the word “gift” comes up at a city council meeting, alarm bells in everyone’s head should go off. The city has made it clear that there is a process by which the city receives donations and gifts. The formal process works like this as they’ve explained it to us: the giver contacts the city and proposes a donation (whether it be financial, materials, or services). The city staff writes up what’s called a “draft resolution” and sends it to city council. At the very next meeting (this is an important point), the council deliberates on the gift and then votes whether or not to officially receive the gift.
Unfortunately, with this gift, it never got recorded. No one stopped the meeting to say, “Wait, we have to investigate this gift before we receive it. Oops, we already received it! Now what?” No one said anything like this. The meeting just continued. Even at the next meeting, no one makes any mention of it…even after having two weeks to reflect on it.
Another interesting tidbit is that Garth Baldwin, a current city council member, also sits on the Parks and Cemetery board. One could think that he would catch “this gift” as well. After all, that’s his department.
Six months later, our team asked a little more about this gift. How much was that gift worth? How much did the city save? We wanted a dollar amount for the gift. Where is the council action item on this as is required? One city official told one of our investigators that they could not find the paperwork on it. Is that because there was none? A few days later this same investigator met with another high ranking city official. We were handed a colored in map of the area so that the citizens could really understand what had gone on. It looked like the city brought out the local kids and let them have fun with the crayons.
According to the city, Skip Jansen was supposed to clean up that whole area anyways. They are now claiming that this was just part of his responsibility with the city. At this point, we asked for the specific contract with Jansen that proves that this was one of his responsibilities. Crickets again. We are still waiting to see that part of the contract.
Could intent and what was known at the time play a key role in this whole situation? What would a reasonable person in their same shoes think was appropriate? What would be the appropriate course of action based on the city’s policies, ethics, and the law?
Back to intent. It seems that it was the intent of the vice chairman to put the city on notice that they had received a gift. What more could he have done? More importantly is what we discovered. Pay attention here, because this is possibly the most important point: If Skip Jansen didn’t view it as a gift, he had an opportunity to speak up. Shortly after the vice chair spoke, Jansen took the microphone and did not correct the high ranking official. He never challenged what was said. Instead, he stayed silent on "the gift".
Should we be so hard on our city council for not addressing this gift? After all, everyone loves gifts. But this is not a family member giving another family member a gift. Let’s not forget, these are our representatives; they are required to report any type of gift through a council action item. This is not a “whoops” kind of moment. In fact, they have one member, Karena Higgins, who actually is Senior Councel to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. More than anyone on city council, should the citizens have expected her to stop the proceedings? Unfortunately, no one spoke out.
So, where do we go from here? With all of these gifts, I mean no gifts, maybe gifts, should we wonder whether “The Vote” (the amendment that got passed to allow mobile home parks) could withstand higher level scrutiny? That is a question that some are wondering about. In the meantime, we simply investigate, discover, digest, and report, all based on publicly available information. We encourage you to do the same. Check our documents posted, listen to the audio recordings, question your elected officials, and make your own conclusions. After all, that’s what we have the right to do in our great democracy.
​
The Professor and The Team
Seekers of Truth
The Elephant in The Room
(actually 200 elephants)
Marching at 2:00am? 3:00am?
AKA - "The Gift That Keeps on Giving"
Apparently, we’ve asked a trick question to the city of Blaine. Over the past four days, there’s been head scratching, puzzled looks, stall tactics, avoidance, then silence. What’s the question, you ask? You might have to pull out your dictionary for this one or even “phone a friend” since it was so complicated that it’s stumped the entire city; and they’ve now made it clear that complicated questions get no answers. Drum rolllllllll……..
“Who. Delivered. The. Rocks?”
“The Rocks” refer to a gift valued at $30,000 from Skip and Katie Jansen. It is at the center of a series of questions some have, along with another gift from the Jansens that now the city claims is not a gift after all (after 6 months). Complicated, right? No, it’s quite simple according to the city. They took a $30,000 rock gift from developers Skip and Katie Jansen. Then, they took $25,000 from the same developer to fund a study, and then the city pitched in their own $25,000 toward the study, and then “the wonderful gift - no it’s not a gift” happened. All while active in the process to change the zoning - which was a success for the developers. Now questions loom over who delivered the 400 tons of the rock gift. Aren’t you glad it’s not your job to explain all of these things? We keep hearing things like: we can’t find the paperwork. This is 2023 afterall. A simple computer word search for the word “rocks” didn’t seem to work.
How would they know such a tricky question? After all, 400 tons can easily be lost in the paper shuffle. That’s only the equivalent of 200 elephants…or two 747 jumbo jets rolling down H Street…or 40 mobile homes for that matter. OR – the combined weight of everyone living in Blaine (before McDonalds moved in), seriously – no exaggeration.
Why would we ask such a question? You be the judge. To be fair, we’ve asked a couple more questions that they have not answered that are more important (more on that on another post).
What’s the 400 ton deal, you ask? Well, if the city paid for the rocks to be moved, as was stated in their gift contract to accept the $30,000 in rocks, then, bravo - end of story. If it was transported at no cost to the city, then it was a gift…an unreported gift. That would be bad for the city. Very bad. Head scratching bad.
We’ve repeatedly asked in person, on the phone, and in writing about this. We have let them know we were going to press. Crickets chirping. We went from being welcomed at city hall to not making it past the front desk. They have given us an appointment weeks from now. I guess it takes time to remember who delivered 400 tons of rocks. We aren’t making any assumptions, we’re just seeking the truth – wherever it leads.
One puzzling thing is why rocks were noticed being transported by a concerned citizen in the wee hours of the morning. I guess the elephants were being a bit noisy that night around 2 and even 3am as they rumbled their way downtown. Thank goodness, they woke up Blaine’s neighborhood watch. Isn’t that always the way it happens? When you see something, say something. We live by that motto too.
This citizen made a point of bringing this up at the city council meeting (see audio). Wait, is Blaine involved in some kind of secret ops mission that our citizens are going to be a part of soon? Wow. That is so exciting. Remember, we are a border town, so this could make sense.
So, let’s get this straight. If it was city employees moving the rocks, that would be overtime. I don’t think they do overtime. If the city paid contractors to move rocks in the early morning, that would be overtime too. That gets pricey, right? I thought we were on a budget. It suddenly sounds like we are in the latest James Bond movie. All in sleepy Blaine.
What’s at stake here, and what do we know? We’ve been told by city officials that the city has clear policies in place to accept donations. Phew, that’s good. We understand the process to work like this: after receiving a request to give a donation, the city prepares a draft resolution for city council to accept a gift. At the next city council meeting, the council deliberates on the donation resolution and votes to accept or reject it. That’s their process as we understand it as citizen investigators. We don’t know the legal, ethical, or IRS ramifications in a hypothetical case where a city takes a donation, and doesn’t record or document it. Could one wonder since the city can turn a "wonderful gift" into a "not a gift" if they could ever turn a "not a gift" into a "gift"? Maybe it's time to use our "phone a friend" and call our members of City Council to see what they think.
This seems like a good spot to quote our favorite mayor after "The Vote." "We're wasting a lot of time on something that nobody knows what's going on."
Little did we know how profound that statement would become. We move to make that quote Blaine's new motto.
​
The Professor
Seeker of Truth
​
p.s. if any city employees know
anything and would like to speak
to us, you know how to get ahold
of us.
***Update 11-17-23***
City now denies this is a gift despite their own official calling it a gift 6 months prior. We've asked for an official statement and will post it here. Original Story Below.
​
Another Gift Uncovered
City Official Thanks Developer for a
“Wonderful Gift to the City”
Audio Recording Included Below​
​
November 13, 2023
​
BLAINE, WA: We have uncovered audio which reveals another gift by developers, Skip and Katie Jansen, to the city of Blaine. At the May 22, 2023 city council meeting during the public comments section, the Vice-Chair of the Blaine Parks and Cemetery Board praised “a wonderful gift to the city,” by Skip and Katie Jansen.
From what the city official says, Skip and Katie Jansen donated their work crews and heavy machinery to clean up land which included removing trees and underbrush. The speaker goes on to say that it was all done for the city at no cost, and that the Jansens should be recognized for their gift.
To be clear, donating to the city can be a good thing. What is questionable, however, is the city’s continued decisions to accept gifts (valued now in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars) from someone who was actively involved in a political process. Specifically, this gift is from the same developers, Skip and Katie Jansen, who were pushing for a zoning amendment change which would allow their company to apply for a permit to build a large mobile home park in east Blaine. The responsibility lies firmly with the city to have the ethical integrity to question gifts that are being offered. They need to have the moral fortitude to know when saying no is the right thing to do.
One question has not been answered: what is the dollar value of this gift from Skip and Katie Jansen? How much would it have cost the city to rent heavy machinery, pay for the crew to clean up an area, and remove and dispose of trees and underbrush?
When taken in totality, with the gift valued at $30,000 in rocks back in December, along with the $75,000 study funded in part by the Jansens, this new gift leaves us with troubling questions. What role did the cumulation of gifts and financial entanglements have in the city’s decision making process? Should a city ever accept a gift from developers who have active political agendas? Could the city still act in the best interest of their citizens as their financial entanglements with developers continued to grow?
​
The audio from the meeting is below:
​
​
​
​
The Professor
Seeker of Truth
​
Blaine City Council Under Scrutiny for Developers' Payments and Gift
​
Examining the $105,000 web of entanglements before the vote
​
BLAINE, WA: After Blaine city council approved a controversial zoning change to allow mobile home parks in favor of Skip Jansen, a mobile home developer, citizens have uncovered information that raises concerns. Both the city and Jansen, along with another developer, each contributed $25,000 to fund a study assessing the potential tax revenue from new developments. City council authorized the study on December 12, 2022, which was more than ten months before the city voted to approve the zoning change that Jansen has been pushing for.
This study was commissioned to look at Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which predicts the future income the city could gain from a development and allows the city to borrow funds based on that projection to support the development's infrastructure. The second developer in the study is not involved with Jansen in the mobile home development. His property, Grandis Pond, is in the same area as Jansen’s development.
Why is the city financially collaborating with Jansen to commission a report before making any decisions on the amendment he has been lobbying for? Does accepting developers' money to finance the report create an expectation for the city to approve projects? Would the developers have given $50,000 if there was a chance the city might reject their ideas? It's worth noting that the city is currently facing a budget deficit, as mentioned in the Northern Light, raising questions about their impartiality in accepting gifts and payments.
Adding to concerns about impartiality, just fifteen days after the city authorized the $75,000 study, Jansen donated $30,000 worth of rocks to the city. When considering both contributions together, the total financial benefit to the city is $55,000 from Jansen alone ($30,000 in rock donations and $25,000 in study funding). If we include the second developer's contribution to the study, the total financial gain for the city from both developers is $80,000. Then we must consider the city’s investment in the study of $25,000 which brings the total entanglement to $105,000. Is it common for businesses or government to allocate such sums without expecting something in return?
Was the city too far financially invested and entangled in this zoning change to reasonably be able to reject it? Did the city break their fiduciary duty to the public by dragging on the public comments process to check that box that they went through the motions? The city's involvement in this study makes us wonder if they had already made up their minds about approving the zoning change and any future developments, rendering the public comment period a mere formality.
​
What are we going to uncover next? Our journalists have only been on this for a week.
Developer Donates to City While Seeking Controversial Zoning Change. City Deliberates and Passes Zoning Ten Months Later.
We just received this document from a helpful source and thought it might be of interest. According to the document, JIJ Corporation, represented by Skip and Katie Jansen, donated approximately 400 tons of rocks to the City of Blaine. The document states that the donation will save the city approximately $30,000 in material costs. It goes on to say that this donation will help the city with their Shoreline Reconstruction Project. City Council accepted the donation on December 27, 2022, and in the resolution, it states that the Jansens are not receiving compensation for the donation. This gift happened approximately 10 months before City Council voted in favor of the text amendment that Skip and Katie Jansen were pushing for to allow a manufactured home park in east Blaine. If it is not permissible for an individual public official to accept gifts since it could influence policy (under RCW 42.23.070), then is it okay for an entire city to accept a gift? City council did just that. They accepted a gift valued at $30,000 prior to voting on an amendment that Skip Jansen had been lobbying for. This clearly brings up some ethical concerns that should be addressed at a higher level.
The Professor's Comments:
No Comment
***NEWS FLASH***
City of Blaine Responds
Document Dump
The City of Blaine responded to our Public Records Act request. You can read their reply at the bottom of this page (HERE). Fortunately for you, The Professor has created a Cliff Notes version:
The Professor's Cliff Notes
Umm...Wow! You want all this? That's gonna take us a year - maybe longer. The only person who knows how to do a word search quit. We're broke and can't find anyone here who knows how to use that magnifying glass button in our email. What's that button for anyway? Even if we did figure out how to use it, we don't know how to copy and paste, so we'll probably just print everything and then use our Xerox copy machine and we could actually snail mail it to you too. Wait - we might actualIy have to tell the people that you listed that you want their emails to the city. What will they think?! We might not give you everything. It's gonna be expensive. Very expensive. Did I say it's gonna cost money?
​
Can you just tell us what the first thing you want is? That might be easier for us. Or better yet - can you just ask for less?
#GovernmentEfficiency
#WorkinHard
#DelayDelayIt'llGoAway
#RegrettingTheVote
#TheProfessor
We sent this request to the City of Blaine to gather a better understanding of the decision to green light the zoning text change allowing a trailer home park. As we receive information, we will post highlights here and also post a link to the entire set of documents.
Note: According to RCW 40.16.010 - Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy, conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of law, is guilty of a class C felony.
Our Request
Public Records Request
To: City of Blaine Clerk
​
Date: October 27, 2023
​
Re: Public Records Act Request
​
I am requesting the release of public records under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) in the spirit of government transparency.
All of the requested items below should include email, written notes, electronic files, paper documents, text messages, voicemail transcripts, phone call notes, and any other methods of communication from the time period of June 1, 2021 to present. Note, according to RCW 42.56.010(3), personal email accounts and personal phones and devices are not exempt from this request if used in the “conduct of government”.
City Council Members:
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and Skip Jansen (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and Katie Jansen (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills)
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and JIJ corporation (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and East Harbor Hills, LLC.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all City Council member(s) regarding the East Harbor Hills project.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all City Council members with keywords “Manufactured Home”.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all City Council members regarding BMC 17.68.120.A.1.
-
All correspondence to or from any City Council members containing the keywords “East Harbor Hills”.
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and any and all Planning Commission member regarding the East Harbor Hills project.
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and Craig Parkinson (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all City Council members and Inger Brockman (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All applications (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills) submitted by or on behalf of any and all of the following: Skip Jansen, Katie Jansen, JIJ Corporation, East Harbor Hills LLC, Inger Brockman, Craig Parkinson, and Cascade Engineering.
Planning Commission Members including Stacy Clausen:
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and Skip Jansen (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and Katie Jansen (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and JIJ corporation (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and East Harbor Hills, LLC.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) regarding the East Harbor Hills project.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) regarding BMC 17.68.120.A.1.
-
All correspondence to or from any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) with keyword search “Manufactured Home”.
-
All correspondence to or from any Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) containing the keyword search “East Harbor Hills”.
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and Craig Parkinson (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All correspondence between any and all Planning Commission members (including Stacy Clausen) and Inger Brockman (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
All applications submitted by or on behalf of any and all of the following: Skip Jansen, Katie Jansen, JIJ Corporation, East Harbor Hills LLC, Inger Brockman, Craig Parkinson, and Cascade Engineering (limited in scope to East Harbor Hills).
-
Any studies submitted regarding East Harbor Hills including SEPA.
Kindly provide the requested documentation within five business days from the date of this letter. Electronic format is preferred.
