Seattle City Council

Friends of Seattle's picture

Tunnel Resolution - Proposed Amendments

On Monday the City Council will vote to approve a resolution that will say the Council intends, in the future, to authorize the city-state agreements necessary to construct a deep bore tunnel.

Friends of Seattle has proposed two amendments (see below) which would affirm the people's power of referendum and would put in writing--for the first time--the Council's belief that the cost overruns provision of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is legally unenforceable.

Proposed Amendment - People's Power of Referendum

The Council should allay public fears that the Council plans to find a loophole to avoid the referendum power. Our proposed amendment would reassure the public that Council is acting in good faith and respects the people's ultimate authority to legislate. If Council says no to our proposed amendment, then the question becomes, "Why?" A refusal to adopt it would suggest that the Council does in fact intend to find a way around a referendum.

Proposed Text: "With this Resolution, the City Council does not intend to abridge the people's power to subject city ordinances to a public referendum. Upon the Council's authorization of the agreements attached as Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to this Resolution, the Council recognizes that the people may subject the Council's authorization of the agreements to a referendum, as provided in the City Charter."

Proposed Amendment - Cost Overruns

The resolution says city policy is that Seattle is not liable for cost overruns. However, we think state law is what matters, not city policy. Many councilmembers have joined the City Attorney in saying that the cost overruns provision of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is not enforceable. If the Council really believe that the cost overruns provision is legally meaningless, the Council should put it in writing. We have lingering doubts about it, of course. But the city would be better off going on the record. If the Council demurs, our question, given that the above amendment is consistent with their position, again is "Why?"

Proposed Text: "RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) provides that any costs for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project 'in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.' The City Council believes that this portion of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is legally unenforceable, and the State therefore does not presently have the legal authority to levy a tax or special assessment on Seattle area property owners for any cost overruns."

Friends of Seattle's picture

Video: A Viaduct Replacement for Everyone, Not Just People Who Can Afford Champagne

This video was created by a member of Friends of Seattle. We now share it with you.

In January 2009, downtown elites and members of the Seattle City Council drank champagne to celebrate the agreement to build a deep bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

In this agreement (see the PDF) between the City of Seattle, King County, and the State, the State said it would work to get the County the authority it needed for an motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) to raise over $200 million for transit. Two years later, the State has not kept this promise.

We need transit to make the Viaduct replacement work for everyone, not just people who can afford champagne.

2010 City Council - Deep Bore Tunnel Poll

A poll was taken on July 20, 2010 of Seattle voters who are likely to vote in the Seattle City Council elections in 2011. The poll, conducted by the firm Win Power Stragies, asked about:

  1. The likelihood that a voter would support a candidate for city council who approves a tunnel contract with the state that leaves Seattle on the hook for cost overruns.
  2. The likelihood that a voter would approve or reject such a contract if there were a ballot referendum on it.

More than half of voters polled, 51.6 percent said that they would be somewhat or very unlikely to support a Seattle City Councilmember who voted to sign a contract with the State that would put Seattle on the hook for cost overruns for the deep bore tunnel. Only 35.2 percent said they were somewhat or very likely to support such a councilmember.

When asked whether they would support the tunnel in an up or down vote in a referendum 48.8 percent of the respondents said they would vote "no" on contract obligating Seattle to pay for overruns. Only 32.5 percent said they would vote to approve the contract.

Complete results, including cross-tabs: (PDF) (jpg1) (jpg2)

Poll demographics and weighting information are available here (PDF).

Press release: (PDF)

There are 411 responses, for a margin of error of 4.9%.

Here is the complete text of the two questions:

Question 1: Effect of a Councilmember Approving a Tunnel Contract with the State

The state legislature passed a law in 2009 supporting the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep bore tunnel under downtown Seattle. The state estimates the cost of replacing the Viaduct will be over four billion dollars. State law says that all cost overruns will have to be paid by Seattle taxpayers, not the State. Several Seattle City Council members want to sign a contract with the State agreeing to the tunnel and accepting the state law that makes Seattle taxpayers liable for all cost overruns. Press 1 if you are very likely to support a Council member who signed this contract. Press 2 if you are somewhat likely to support a Council member who signed this contract. Press 3 if you are somewhat unlikely to support a Council member who signed this contracts. Press 4 if you are very unlikely to support a Council member who signed this contract. Press 5 if you’re not sure.

Responses:

FOS_candidates.jpg

 

Question 2: Effect of a Councilmember Approving a Tunnel Contract with the State

If the Seattle City Council signs such a contract with the State accepting Seattle taxpayers will be liable for all cost overruns for construction of a deep bore tunnel, some Seattle citizens want to put the contract to a ballot referendum. Would you vote to approve or reject such a contract? Press 1 if you would vote to approve the contract. Press 2 if you would vote to reject the contract.

Responses:

poll_tunnel_referendum.jpg

2009 Report Card - Backyard Cottages/Detached Accessory Dwelling Units

Overview (25%): Allowing more choices in single family neighborhoods by permitting detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) citywide provides Seattle's single family homeowners with a variety choices to accommodate growth, creating affordable options for extended family members, generating additional household income, and helping the city achieve the broader benefits of compact communities like walkability and reduced environmental impact. Instead of embracing cottages, however, the Council took more than 5 years to finally pass a citywide ordinance allowing detached accessory dwelling units.

Because this new law helps the city achieve the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Council's dithering was particularly surprising. Two of the stated objectives of the GMA are to "focus urban growth in urban areas" and to "reduce sprawl." (pdf about GMA) And in the Council's most recent legislative agenda, adopted last November (see pdf of Council resolution stating the legislative agenda), the Council said, "we support the Growth Management Act (GMA) as the primary means of planning for growth." This is another example of the Council's actions lagging behind their stated goals.

The council as a whole moved too slowly on passage, so comments below reflect either any overt leadership on the issue or undue resistance or concern. All Councilmembers must be applauded, however, for ultimately voting in favor of reasonable cottage legislation.

Tim Burgess (C/A)

Burgess did not take a leading role on this issue although he echoed the concerns of a small group of opponents from Laurelhurst: "I'm worried that we're going to create an adversarial environment with no solution. And then people are really going to be ticked off." However, in the final vote, he said, "I think these cottages actually contribute to the fabric of the community."

Sally Clark (D/A)

The cottage legislation was an opportunity for Clark, the chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee (PLUNC), to shine. But she indulged an overly long debate and considered provisions opposed by the Planning Commission (see pdf of Planning Commission report). Instead of moving forward quickly and decisively, Clark equivocated with her concerns about the cottages, echoing the staunchest defenders of the single-family status quo, saying, "I have to admit – they look big. Maybe too big? Maybe 800 square feet is too much? Maybe 23 feet is too high? Maybe it's just those two numbers together?" We hope that Clark will be less contemplative on areas of the land use code where there is strong consensus among sustainability advocates, urban planners, affordable housing advocates, and members of the broader community. Listening to small groups of narrowly focused and self-interested opponents of progressive land use doesn't help anyone—it emboldens them to continue their opposition of good policies, lengthens the process, and sews division among communities that ought to be motivating to work together to make their neighborhoods better places. Conversation is good, but it can widen the Sustainability Gap for Seattle the longer it goes on unhelpfully.

Richard Conlin (A/A)

Conlin expressed public support of expanding the cottage concept citywide, even acknowledginghis support of one in his own backyard—and its benefits. "I was happy to offer my neighbor an easement for a sewer line under my driveway when the tiny decrepit dwelling on that lot was replaced a few years ago with a cottage that is similar to those allowed under this legislation," wrote Conlin in one of his newsletters. "Burglars had used the alley to access the houses on our block several times, but since this dwelling unit was built that has stopped." Finally, Conlin also made smart comments to address more skittish councilmembers on enforcing caps on the number of cottages permitted. He recognized that a cap could have a negative effect "causing a rush to the permit counter, leading to an increase in poorly thought-out units." Conlin was outstanding on this issue and showed how effective he can be.

Jan Drago (C/A)

Drago voted for the bill but not a leader on the cottage legislation.

Jean Godden (C/A)

Godden supported the bill but was not a champion.

Bruce Harrell (C/A)

Harrell "expressed some concerns about the design impacts of backyard cottages on neighborhoods" but voted for them anyway.

Nick Licata (C/A)

Licata gave an unequivocal answer of "yes" when asked about whether he supported the cottage concept.

Richard McIver (C/A)

McIver voted for the legislation but didn't seem to be a champion.

Tom Rasmussen (F/A)

Rasmussen voiced so many doubts about the cottage proposal that the Seattle PI described him as the most "cautious" member of the land use committee. Rasmussen said that cottages might negatively "impact qualities that people seek in single-family neighborhoods -- privacy, solar access … and noise" He also noted, "There is concern in our single family neighborhoods that the cottages could significantly change those neighborhoods.... When people buy a home in a single-family neighborhood, they have certain expectations." He went on to offer ideas about imposing design review and allowing neighbors to appeal a permit for a cottage project and commented on his Facebook page that he thought the approved legislation allowed for buildings that were too high.

2009 Report Card

 
 
Deep Bore
Tunnel
(50%)
Backyard
Cottages/
DADUs
(25%)
Funding for
Transportation -
Employee Hours
Tax
(25%)
Overall
Leadership    Vote    
Leadership    Vote    

Leadership

       Vote  
   
Tim
Burgess
F F C A B F D+
Sally
Clark
F F D A D F D-
Richard
Conlin
F F A A F F D
Jan
Drago
F F C A C F D
Jean
Godden
F F C A B- F D
Bruce
Harrell
C F C A D F D+
Nick
Licata
F F C A C F D
Richard
McIver
F F C A B+ A C+
Tom
Rasmussen
F F F A D F D-
Mike
O'Brien
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sally
Bagshaw
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Purpose: Seattle is facing historic challenges—job losses, climate change, unaffordable housing, and falling city revenues. The City Council has the power and obligation to the enact laws and budgets needed to meet these challenges. This report card evaluates councilmembers' decisions on legislation that either helps or hurts the goal of Seattle becoming a sustainable, livable, and affordable community.

Focus: We believe Seattle should aspire to become a city with compact and walkable neighborhoods, well-networked streets, more bicycle facilities, more pedestrian facilities, more affordable housing, an efficient transit network, a restored natural ecology, more parks and public spaces, low waste generation, energy conservation, local food production, and transparent government. These are the building blocks we need to make Seattle the green city we want.

Issues: We graded the Council on three issues, chosen because each pitted a commitment to sustainability against some basic unsustainable assumptions held by powerful interests in our community: roads mean jobs; density is a step backward; and tax breaks will help business. Challenging these assumptions is risky for an elected official, especially in an election year. But these are the issues where a strong, principled position and consistent voting demonstrate the kind of leadership that overcomes doubts among citizens.

Grading Criteria: The grades are based on what councilmembers did and said and how they voted. We ask two questions for each issue:

  • Has the councilmember taken the tough, courageous vote necessary to achieve a sustainable outcome for our city?
  • Has the councilmember has been a leader who shows creativity, openness to debate, and decisiveness?

We graded councilmembers poorly if they said one thing but did another, or voted in a way inconsistent with the goal of Seattle becoming a sustainable, livable and affordable community. Because so many councilmembers claim they support this goal, we looked carefully for signs of what we call the Sustainability Gap—the difference between what elected officials say and what they actually do. Supportive statements and master plans are not enough—we looked for action.

Follow the links below for a detailed explanation of each councilmember's final grade, which is an average based on the weight of each issue.

A complete PDF version of the 2009 Report Card is available here.

Friends of Seattle's picture

Nine Questions About the Tunnel Project for the Seattle City Council

Before the City Council ratifies an agreement with the State about the tunnel project, the Council must have answers to these nine questions:

  1. Why did the state cap its contribution to the tunnel at $2.4 billion and make Seattle taxpayers responsible to pay for cost overruns?
  2. How can the City Council protect Seattle taxpayers from paying for cost overruns on the project?
  3. How can the city manage a state project to prevent cost overruns?
  4. Given the cap in state law, how would the state legally pay more than $2.4 billion for the project?
  5. Why has the state shifted risk on the performance bonds away from itself and the contractor and onto Seattle?
  6. What is the cause of cost overruns on other megaprojects? Is it as proponents claim due to delay? Are there other causes?
  7. What is the state doing differently here than on other megaprojects to prevent overruns?
  8. What will happen if the tunneling machine gets stuck underground? Who will pay? How will it be resolved?
  9. If Seattle has to pay for cost overruns, how would the city pay for them? What taxes would the City Council raise, or what programs would it cut?

UPDATE: We should point out that we saw these questions on an e-mail circulated by the mayor's office to the media. We agree it is essential that the Council have answers to these questions, and so we're asking them here.

About the Report Card

The purpose of the annual Report Card is to hold our elected officials accountable to a principled vision for Seattle. The grades and accompanying analysis provide citizens with the information they need to track the performance of the City Council. The City Council has the power and obligation to meet the changes of today and to prepare for a brighter, greener future. Instead of waiting until election year, let's make sure that councilmembers are always doing the right thing.

Grading Criteria: The grades are based on what councilmembers did and said and how they voted. We ask two questions for each issue:

  • Has the councilmember taken the tough, courageous vote necessary to achieve a sustainable outcome for our city?
  • Has the councilmember has been a leader who shows creativity, openness to debate, and decisiveness?

We grade councilmembers poorly if they say one thing but do another, or vote in a way inconsistent with the goal of Seattle becoming a sustainable, livable and affordable community. Because so many councilmembers claim they support this goal, we look carefully for signs of what we call the Sustainability Gap—the difference between what elected officials say and what they actually do. Supportive statements and master plans are not enough—we look for action.

Who: The Report Card is produced by Party of the Future, a project of Friends of Seattle.

Friends of Seattle's picture

Richard Conlin Justifies the Repeal of the Head Tax

Although we vociferously opposed the City Council's proposal to repeal the commuter tax (aka head tax), we did not prevail, and the Council voted 8-1 to repeal the tax. Below is Richard Conlin's response to our most recent lobbying email about the topic.

Thank you for your message about the repeal of Seattle’s Employee Hours Tax (‘Head Tax’).  The Council approved this repeal by a vote of 8 to 1 on Monday, November 23, Councilmember McIver voting no.  The tax was repealed for four reasons:

1.      While it was originally designed to complement the parking tax in raising funds for major transportation projects under the Bridging the Gap program, the parking tax is generating more income than had been anticipated, and the planned Bridging the Gap investments are fully funded using the parking tax alone.

2.      Seattle is the only jurisdiction in Washington that requires businesses to calculate three different taxes (gross receipts, square footage, and employee hours).  The first two generate more than 95% of the business tax revenue.

3.      During the Council’s deliberations on economic recovery, repeal of this tax was singled out by the business community as a high priority.  They consider having a tax on employees the wrong signal to send when we are hoping to put people back to work.

4.      Numerous organizations also noted that the paperwork is painful for very modest results, especially for organizations that have many part-time employees and many employees who use alternative modes of transportation.  The President of Antioch University Seattle, for example,  wrote in support of repeal, noting that it took about two weeks of employee time to survey staff and calculate the tax exemptions – for a tax payment of $866.

The repeal of the head tax will not have any impact on planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements.  These funds are not dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and in fact this tax was intended primarily to support larger projects, although a small portion has been used for ped/bike projects.  While it could be used for more such projects in the future, there is no guarantee of that, and it was neither in the design or the arguments for the tax.

No pedestrian or bicycle improvements that are planned for the period 2009 to 2014 will be affected by the repeal of the tax, and I would not support it if it would put those projects in jeopardy.
Projects which could be funded from the head tax are fully funded by the parking tax revenue, which is bringing in more revenue than projected, and more than enough to make up for the loss of the head tax revenue.

I sponsored the amendment that exempted employees who used other than SOV's.  It was cosmetic -- to provide a defensible rationalization rather than any expectation that it would impact modes of travel.  This was not part of the original legislation, and there is no evidence that it has any impact -- it is not a large enough amount to make it worthwhile for the employer to subsidize alternative modes, and does not go directly to the employee to encourage them to use alternative modes.

There are numerous options for funding future ped/bike improvements, and this is a small and not ideal possible source of funds.  Something more directly connected to transportation would be much better.  Councilmembers are looking for the appropriate funding mechanism, and we will work with the new administration to design one that will provide the appropriate funding.

Council President Richard Conlin

Seattle City Hall

600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2

PO Box 34025

Seattle, WA 98124-4025


(206) 684-8805

 

My email newsletter is a great way to keep informed about issues and join me in making things work for a better Seattle.

 

To subscribe to Making It Work, please go to www.mailermailer.com/x?oid=33062p and follow the prompts

Friends of Seattle's picture

Letter Urging Council Not to Repeal Commuter Tax, Offering Amendments if They Do

We sent the below letter via email to the City Council regarding the commuter tax. The Council plans to vote on the cut on Thursday, November 12 or Friday, November 13.

 

Dear Councilmembers,

I am writing to urge you to keep the commuter tax (Employee Hours Tax) and not repeal it during your budget votes on Thursday and Friday. The Council’s concern for Seattle’s businesses is admirable, but this is the wrong solution to the problem -- at $91 per year for the average business, the cut will offer little succor to struggling businesses. Meanwhile, the 20-year Bridging the Gap infrastructure-building program would be robbed of $100 million.

That fiscal hit, together with the city’s likely need to allocate new commercial parking tax revenue and new vehicle fees to the deep-bore tunnel, means the city’s vaunted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans would become empty gestures. For the foreseeable future, too little funding would be available for sidewalks, bike lanes, and other such improvements. Now is time to make good on the Council’s commitments to build a walkable, bike-friendly, sustainable city. Keep the commuter tax.

If you do choose to cut it, I suggest two amendments to your plans. First, merely suspend the tax and reinstate it in two years when the economy will improve. Second, direct council central staff to prepare a report on the cut’s economic effect, with the report due to the Council in one year. The report should focus on the number of jobs and the amount of economic growth created directly by the cut. That way, the Council will accumulate actual evidence whether tax cutting is sound economic policy.

But the Council should not cut the commuter tax, because the economics tilt in favor of retaining it. Interest rates on municipal bonds are very low, and contractors are submitting low bids for city projects. By borrowing money now against future tax revenue, the city can get the most for the taxpayers’ money while giving the local economy a boost, especially in the beleaguered construction industry. Think of all the new construction projects and new living-wage jobs that will result.

Keeping the commuter tax will create more jobs, allow the city to build when its buying power is greatest, and move the city towards achieving its progressive transportation goals.

Sincerely,

Gary Manca
President, Friends of Seattle
 

Friends of Seattle's picture

Head Tax Repealed (Publicola)

Friends of Seattle is in the news.

Erica C. Barnett, "Head Tax Repealed," Publicola (November 12, 2009)

Also this morning, the city council voted to repeal the employee hours tax, a $25-per-employee tax, paid by employers, that exempts employees who don’t drive to work alone. . . . Friends of Seattle sent a last-minute letter to the council earlier this week, pleading with council members to either vote against the repeal or to amend the law to merely suspend the tax temporarily and to track the economic impact of the repeal for a year.

 

Read the whole thing.

Syndicate content