We have a winner on last week’s contest. (actually there were two.)

A couple of people noticed that salaries are the big part of the budget and that they jumped a lot between 2022 and 2024. That was all I was looking for. One person questioned whether the entire budget had jumped as dramatically, or if certain areas might not be more ‘inflated’ than others. That was a fabulous question and was the tie-breaker. One Tuscany Pie, coming up! 🙂

Last Week

Tuesday: Southside Seattle FIFA Stakeholder Meeting. This requires some explanation. There’s this game you Americans play, involving a nut-shaped leather ‘ball’. And then there is football, the game watched every week by like 10X more people than any Super Bowl ever. You need a tax attorney to figure out how FIFA schedules work. But fwiw,  two games of the ¹2026 FIFA World Cup 32 (the ones people care about) will be played in Seattle in July. Four other ‘group stage’ ones of interest mainly to the hardcore will be in June. All will be at Lumen Field. Without some form of divine intervention, almost no locals will get seats–unless your name is perhaps Harrell or Inslee, etc.

However, there may be several practice events in surrounding cities like Renton, and of course, a ton of tourism for those weeks. So Southside Seattle–a regional chamber of commerce we belong to, is organising meetings to consider how each city might get in on some of that gravy. There is a chance that some small portion of said gravy may come our way. And hopefully, having a World Cup within the same county will incentivise the new Light Rail Station to open on time. We also hope that it will mean that our hotels will be booked solid. But if anyone starts talking about how it’s going to bring thousands of whatever here? Or that we should spend even more money on ferries and whatnot to promote the City? Please ask for the evidence. 🙂 That said, I’ll keep attending these meetings. As with the Mission meeting above, I would love to be wrong on this one!

Wednesday: There was a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee. The highlight was a presentation on the budget and a Q&A. However, as far as I can tell, it was not live-streamed or recorded or promoted in any way by the City–including any mention on Facebook or in the City Manager’s usually thorough Weekly Reports. I hope to be proven wrong, but this feels like a total fail to me, on the part of the City, the committee members, and the CAC members We all talk about wanting better ‘public engagement’. But when we have a ‘Citizens Advisory Committee’ that only about two dozen people know know about? Total fail.

Thursday: Speaking of total fails. I attended the second meeting of the Commercial Aviation Workgroup (aka ‘the second airport committee’). As I keep saying, there will be no ‘second airport’ around here in anyone’s lifetime. I tell people that not to lapse into despair, but rather to get people to stop dreaming and work together to dial back on Sea-Tac Airport

Thursday: Finance Committee

Highlights: The Finance Committee approved a warehouse tax. See last week for details, but this is something I’ve been yammering about for years. It will bring over $600,000 a year. That is not a typo. We just ‘found’ over $600,000 a year in new, structural revenue. This is money we should have been collecting since the business park first began leasing space seven years ago.

There are other missing pieces left to go. One is something known as Leasehold Tax (LET). LET is a tax charged to tax-exempt property owners who rent out their property. We pay it ourselves since we rent out boat slips at the Marina. But the Port of Seattle currently makes millions in revenue from those rentals at the business park, and pays no property tax. Due to a small detail of the tax law the City gets only a pittance of LET.

The other item we discussed was to start charging Water District #54 the same rate we charge to the other utility districts. I am a customer of WD54 and I supported this because it simply puts them into parity with rate payers in the other special purpose districts. That’s another $90,000 a year.

The moral here is simple: By having a Finance Committee, and by doing some research, we just ‘found’ more than $700,000 in structural revenue. These are monies we could have (should have been) collecting all along. I believe we are making these improvements because of the current fiscal issues. And I am also certain we can (and should) find other efficiencies before going to the taxpayers for more money. Nobody likes to hear it, but necessity really is the mother of invention!

Thursday: Public Safety Emergency Management Committee

GREAT SHAKE OUT – OCTOBER 17, 2024 AT 10:17AM
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW/COMMAND TEAM
CRIME STATISTIC OVERVIEW REPORT
SCORE OPERATIONS OVERVIEW

Thursday: City Council Study Session

The agenda consisted of one item: The Budget. Mea culpa: it was surprisingly tax levy free. Well done. But it also avoided the most important (and toughest) discussions because they suck to discuss. Namely payroll.

2025-2026 Proposed Preliminary Budget

The winning contest entry noted how much payroll jumped between 2022 and 2024. But more than that, both correct entries noted what a large percentage payroll is in our city-typically over sixty percent of our General Fund. It’s the reason I dislike the City’s comparisons with other cities’ budget issues. For example, we are not like Edmonds in that police funding is only about a third of their general fund (also they’ve been having serious accounting issues–oy.)

I’m not saying that payroll shouldn’t be almost thirds of our general fund, but I’m also sure that it didn’t used to be that high. And I’m also sure there is a percentage that it should be, based on how much revenue we take in. ie. the optimum percentage working with what you have to work with. There have to be at least some independent metrics and ways for the Council to know what is best practice–besides being told what to do by current staff. We tend to only make these adjustments when new staff come on board.

I understand how ‘snippy’ that may sound to some. And I’m always skeptical whenever anyone agrees with me. 😀 But the new Director of Public Works unveiled a new policy regarding vehicle purchases that I’ve asked about since I first took my seat. In the past, the police asked for ad hoc vehicle purchases every year. Two here. Three there. The Chief would say that each was a great deal and represented how frugal we were in only asking for what we needed. I was always skeptical because I walk by the maintenance yard all the time and see a big queue of vehicles waiting for service. I would wonder why we weren’t using a more structured fleet replacement fund. Apparently, we’re going to adopt that approach, and over time, it will save us a lot of money. Great!

So again, at the risk of sounding snippy, this is like the warehouse tax (see Finance Committee). It’s another idea we could have been doing all along. So (again) the moral is, you can either wait years for a ‘fiscal crisis’, or a new department director, or you can adopt an approach which constantly questions assumptions and seeks out process improvements. That is a part of the Council’s job. Oversight.

We discussed lots of ‘smaller’ items that I know people care about–like City Currents and Animal Control. But there will be several other budget meetings. The new City Manager will show up in a few weeks. And there will be an election. That last thing will either give the City more of your tax dollars or give the City even greater incentives to find ways to generate revenue and obtain greater management efficiencies that we just couldn’t seem to get to until now. 🙂

So, since I’ve hit my word count, I’ll just say this: nothing is cast in stone. Don’t worry. And don’t take every ‘cut’ that is discussed today as gospel. A lot can change before the end of the year. We’ve made a great deal of progress and there can be a lot more.

¹Technically, it’s the men’s world cup. But until the ladies start getting paid real money, the rest of the world will continue to stick with ‘world cup’. No letters, please. 😀

Your goal is to click on this image from our 2024 budget (last year) and look at the table at the bottom, and report what sticks out most to you in comparing 2022 and 2024. Best answer wins. Good news: It’s not hard.

Hope you win! 🙂

This Week

Thursday: The second meeting of the Commercial Aviation Workgroup (aka ‘the second airport committee’). They have about as much chance of siting a second airport as I have joining the NBA. Zoom Registration

Thursday: Public Safety_Emergency Management Committee The packet has no specifics as of this writing (sorry). But I’ll bet ya another prize that something rhyming with Shmax Shmevy is dicussed. 😀

• GREAT SHAKE OUT – OCTOBER 17, 2024 AT 10:17AM
• DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW/COMMAND TEAM
• CRIME STATISTIC OVERVIEW REPORT
• SCORE OPERATIONS OVERVIEW

Thursday: Finance Committee Highlight: This is a biggee. The City is putting its toe in the water on something I’ve been screaming about for years: warehouse taxes. We currently have a B&O tax based on sales or manufacturing, but warehouses don’t work like that. So, the Des Moines Creek Business Park has been largely municipal air: huge, tax-exempt buildings that do a lot of business, but provide no benefit to the City.

Other cities with lots of warehouse space (Kent, Auburn) have been charging a small per sq. ft. tax for years. I am pleased that we’re now going to consider doing the same. Most of our business taxes are in the low range, so I’m sure that will apply here as well. But even starting at a low rate will yield over $600,000 in annual revenue.

Thursday: City Council Study Session The agenda consists of one item: The Budget. Dunh, dunh, duhhhhhhh…. 😀 The packet consists of a Powerpoint sent to City staff a few weeks ago asking them for ideas on how to balance the budget, plus more of the comparisons with other cities and the difficulties of inflation over the past few yeears. You’ll see below how not happy I am about that approach, which is basically to continue encouraging everyone (including staff?) to vote for the same tax levy voters rejected in August. It makes me want to scream:

We get it. You’re desperate!

Which I try not to do. 🙂

But here’s the deal: if you play the contest above, you’ll see a big part of the problem which is currently not being addressed.

Last Week

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission

This was a weird one. It was the first meeting I’ve attended since COVID where there were no Commissioners in the house; all ‘remote’. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t important for us.

The Commission authorised a $6.6M payment to Highline Water District concerning 2022 incidents concerning PFAS. As I keep saying, anything on the airport plateau eventually ends up in our water system.

They’re also entering their budget season. Due to its size, it breaks the budget discussion into several component meetings. Spoiler alert: business is booming. In spite of that, they are expressing concerns over the cost of the SAMP, which will indeed, be over $5 billion dollars. Boo hoo. 😀

This matters: The majority of all that capital spending concerns the SAMP–to increase flight operations over our heads. And a large chunk of their financing will come from your property taxes. You are literally paying for more noise and pollution and crime and reduction in property values and educational decline.

Thursday 4:00pm Municipal Facilities Committee

RENTAL FACILITY DISCOUNTS I have to give kudos to Interim City Manager George. He finally said out loud what has needed to be said for a very long time: the City has been subsidising various groups by giving ongoing discounts and this must either end, or at least be accounted for very differently.

MARINA PAID PARKING FINANCIAL UPDATES This is happier news. After almost eight years, the new paid parking system is working properly and bringing in the revenues the City always hoped. 🙂 Does this make me an unabashed fan of paid parking? I still have mixed feelings. It’s not a huge amount of money. But by moving forward with the Marina Steps we surrendered the center of the Marina, which was supposed to be used for retail. So in the absence of any real profit-making at the Marina, we have to do something to bring in at least a few bucks.

Thursday 5:00pmEconomic Development Committee Agenda

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (CHAPTER 7: HOUSING ELEMENT) This is arguably the most important portion of the Comp Plan and this meeting was somewhat painful to watch. It felt to me like the committee majority sees adding new housing options as a burden and not a major opportunity.

Here’s the deal: If the City wants to make more money? BUILD MORE HOUSES! Every frickin’ week you’ll hear about a housing crisis on the news. All the experts agree on one main cause: local city councils doing everything possible to resist providing more flexible building options. It’s why the State stepped in with the Middle Housing Law. We’ve simply refused to do it on our own. And apart from the morality of offering more places for people to live, it should drive you nuts as a taxpayer. In a community like ours, one with such limited commercial options, a cure for budget woes is BUILD MORE HOUSES!

September 26 City Council Meeting Recap

Regular Meeting Agenda – Updated

Public comment

I try to encourage people to show up to meetings in person because even if you watch on TV, you don’t get a sense of what it feels like. If I were controlling the video– like the Outer Limits, I’d do what we used to do–pan the camera to the audience every so often so you could see what I mean. Anyhoo, this was the most crowded meeting during my tenure. Much of the room was taken up by what looked like half the police force support of the tax levy. The others were residents concerned about Des Moines Creek West.

Consent Agenda

Three items were pulled. And in a first? None by me! 😀

CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY FUND  (passed 4-3) The idea is to have a separate accounting fund where any monies from a dedicated sales tax would be stored. Pulled by Steinmetz in order to have (another) chance to sell, Sell, SELL the public on the levy lid lift. There was (and is) no need for this unless the lid lift passes. And if the lid lift fails again, it will cease to exist. There’s a freshman philosophy question in there somewhere. 😀

LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Confirm the Mayoral appointment of Mackenzie Meyers–new owner of the Quarterdeck. Passed 7-0. Pulled by Achziger to make the point that it’s basically impossible to find out who is on what advisory committee at any given moment, or what they’re working on. Said it before, say it again, we used to put this info out to the public as a matter of course. It’s an easy fix. Steinmetz objected suggesting that this was not the time for that discussion. I disagree. The time to raise an issue is when there’s a practical example at hand.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 2117 (Passed 6-1) We voted to oppose the November Ballot Initiative which would repeal the Climate Commitment Act. In other words, we want the Climate Commitment Act to continue to exist. In addition to being a bit trickier than I’d like, this is also an example of something I’ve been meaning to mention for a while: We are seven very different people. We often vote the same, but for very different reasons. (See below.)

I want the CCA to continue because it will be the major source of funding for all environmental programs in Des Moines. Some of my colleagues want it because it may end up being the only funding source for… wait for it… a ferry. 😀

Public Hearing

We voted to approve purchase of Tract C (7-0), a teeny service road which is part of Des Moines Creek West. Previous coverage here and at Sea-Tac Noise.Info.

I proposed an amendment (passed 5-2) to set aside 10% of the proceeds ($69,000) for legal expertise on the SAMP.

New Business

Adoption Of 2025 – 2030 Capital Improvements Plan We passed this in fourteen (14) minutes. And that included the staff presentation. It probably sounded like grandstanding, but my comment was “Public Planning Commission.” As per usual, my colleagues objected, saying that all these items are reviewed in committee. Not. True. We usually only review items that Staff want to highlight. And this is the only venue where all of us get a chance to ask questions. Since the public almost never attends committee meetings, it is highly unlikely they ever get a read on projects they really would care about if they knew.

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 1, PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY LID LIFT

(Passed 4-3) Oh good, another chance to a 20 minute sales presentation and re-litigate the August 6, election! 😀 As you may recall, the vote to place the tax levy on the ballot in August was split 4-3. And this vote went the same.

Tract C

I voted for the Tract C. It was the right vote. But for people who care about not having a business park next to their home, and have concerns about the loss of trees, wetlands, etc. that is not a message they will appreciate. I am very sorry. The only acceptable vote for many concerned people would have been not just ‘no’, but Hell No!

Interim City Manager George has been saying the following for three meetings:

Whether or not we sell that strip of land has no bearing on the rest of the project. Tract C had no ability to stop anything.

Perhaps people did not believe him (or me) because of the ongoing trust issues we’re debating across so many issues. Perhaps it’s just too complicated. Perhaps the public does not understand that all seven of us can (and do) sometimes vote based on very different motivations. Perhaps all of the above. 😀

We have a generational relationship problem with the Port of Seattle. That means a Council that has long considered projects like all of Des Moines Creek Business Park truly wonderful for the City, no matter how much it hurts. So much so that both the current and previous Mayor thanked the Port for taking the property off our hands in 2022. It’s just another flavour of ‘this will bring thousands of whatever to Des Moines.

Des Moines Port of Seattle Second Development Agreement 2 But the last ‘real’ decision on Des Moines Creek West–including Tract C–occurred with this 2012 agreement.  Every Council majority since the mid-2000’s has been buying into some notion of ‘economic partnerships’ with the Port of Seattle. I am pushing against literally decades of inertia on both the Council and the City of Des Moines planning department.

If you care about the issue, the next meaningful decision point is actually up to you, the public,on October 18, and not the Council. Your job is to find legal flaws in the SEPA plan or in the Hearing Examiner’s judgement. If you find compelling legal arguments, I can oppose the proposal. If not? I must approve it. To speak of personal preference on a land use decision is one of the only things that can get a councilmember sued under State law. See Appearance Of Fairness Doctrine.

Clarity and Trust

I’ve been trying to make these issues clearer since I ran for office in 2019. I posted the above video in 2022–which totally thrilled my colleagues. Frankly, people do not care (or show) up until they see a 30 Day Notice in the mail. Until then, it’s just an abstraction. People will ask me, “JC why are you always banging on about Public Planning Commission?” Last Thursday is why!!!!!!

My immediate problem last Thursday was that, until that stupid vote, we had exactly zero dollars for environmental legal work to do anything about the Port of Seattle–including the SAMP. Now we have $69,000. Still a pittance. But better than zero.

If I thought the Tract C vote would have had anything more than a symbolic value, I would have voted ‘no’. I don’t do ‘svmbolic’. In this case, the correct strategy was setting aside at least some money today, to fight a meaningful battle with the Port tomorrow.

If I could afford to be cynical, I would assume that some of my colleagues know that $69,000 is  inadequate to the task but are happy to appear like we’re doing something—and then merrily carry on wasting millions on  ideas like the Marina Steps and Ferry. (And letting the Port continue to run roughshod over us to boot.) I cannot afford cynicism at the moment.

If I sound hot? CORRECTAMUNDO! The reactions I’ve received from some of you on this have been, frankly, disappointing. As I wrote above, just because my colleagues and I vote together on an issue does not mean we are ‘all the same’.

When I ran for office, I went out of my way to attempt to bank a certain amount of personal trust with the public. That’s the very point of this blog. To the fullest extent I can (and often at considerable risk) I put myself out there because I know how mistrustful the public is about the City and the Council. I didn’t start it. As you can see with Des Moines Creek West, it’s been going on loooong before I ran for office. People will either believe that the tens of thousands of hours I’ve put into Sea-Tac Noise.Info (not to mention this site) mean something. Or they won’t.

Beyond that large chunk of defensiveness, I also have to work with my colleagues. That’s what people say to us all the time: Try to work together. Play nice. That vote is what it looks like.

And as we get deeper into the SAMP, I will continue to engage in ever more complicated votes that I won’t particularly enjoy in order to try to do something for a community, a City and a Council that has been almost totally checked out on airport issues for 15 years.

But if I were anyone who cares about the future of Des Moines Creek West, I would do whatever it takes to get a Public Planning Commission in place by January 1.

Let’s look at another land use decision

I would also stop being so damned ‘nice’. In fact, one of the things that gets on my last nerve when people lump us all together is how eager people are to treat my colleagues with such kid gloves. You have it backwards, friends. Reward people who do the right things, stop trying to sweet talk those who do not. All it does is make the people who care quit and gives the rest a free pass. That is why politics here has been so chronically backwards, not some absence of ‘civility’.

A working example. Let’s go back, Back, BACK in time to 2015 to another land use project called The Woodmont Recovery Clinic. (It’s stunning to me how few people seem to remember this considering what a huge deal it was at the time–that’s how fast our population turns over.)

As with Des Moines Creek West, the developer did everything by the book. The City totally knew what was going on. The only people who didn’t? The neighbours who got their 30 Day Notice about something they did not want anywhere near them. Sound familiar?

However, in 2015, I don’t recall anyone being particularly nice. There were so many angry residents (including one guy you may recognise 😀 ), the City held a special community meeting at the Field House. And the one comment I remember hearing over and over during that two hour Council beat down?

“If I had known this was possible? I would not have moved here!”

Exactly. They didn’t know. Because they didn’t have a Public Planning Commission. And I wish all my current colleagues and the City had learned something from that experience because it happens on every land use decision bigger than a couple of lots. We remain the only city in the region without a planning commission.

The good news? All it took was a few dozen angry villagers with flaming pitchforks and et voila! The 2015 City Council also starts saying how shocked, Shocked they are about this project! (even though they approved the zoning, of course). No matter. Everyone on the dais agreed it was bad and, to his great credit, then City Manager Tony P. fell on his sword and (triple shock, took responsibility!) And somehow, despite all the prior agreements? The project got killed. Happy ending. 🙂

One other detail about that meeting. I have more differences with former mayor Dave Kaplan than I can count. But unlike more recent Councils, he, and the entire Council, took everything the public threw at them that night with grace. No lectures about ‘civility’. Residents were justifiably hot, and on that occasion ‘Mayor Dave’ did the right thing and just let people vent.

There’s a moral or two in there. 😀

The Long Game

One last thing: This is an all-night card party, not two hands of poker and October 18 is not the end. It will be years before Des Moines Creek West is built out. There will be dozens of votes and new opportunities to change and improve the project, both here and with the landlord (the Port of Seattle.)

There will also be at least one election for City Council next year. Hint. Hint.

But those opportunities will only occur if you are willing to hang in there and not give up. You need to make it crystal clear to current as well as the next batch of councilmembers that you expect them to do better (and self-serving alert) work with me on these types of issues. 😀 None of us can do it on our own!

I’m not quitting. Are you? Because frankly, I’ve been waiting five years to do something about the devastating and ongoing negative impacts of everything to do with the Port of Seattle–including this entire business park. But I need your help. And the thing I need right now are four votes for items like a Public Planning Commission. That’s the next step forward.

Until you insist on that, last Thursday may be the best I can do.