Most Recent Article [more articles below]

2013 Budget: All options on the table

1996

For me 2013 is the most useful and fascinating year in recent DM history. And if I could, I would insist that every current member of the Council and all future candidates listen to this stuff (especially the April 6, ‘all options on the table’ meeting) and take notes.

Introduction

As you’ve perhaps heard many times, in 2013 the City was absolutely tanking. Among the first words spoken by Mayor Kaplan at the April 6 Retreat is that the City was running a $2,000,000 annual deficit.

In addition to Mayor Kaplan, the Council consists of Matt Pina, Carmen Scott, Melissa Musser and Bob Sheckler. Dan Caldwell is ill and will soon resign–being replaced by appointee Jeremy Nutting.

And you can trust me on this: some of the Council got along no better then as now. They have dramatically different views on various issues. And yet? If you watch any bit of these meetings, people seem mighty friendly. There is actual discussion.

April 4 Study Session

April 4, 2013 Study Session Packet

On Thursday April 4, the Council held a typical Study Session to discuss regular stuff (actually the long term plan for Pacific Ridge which is very important and City Manager Piasecki’s attempt to improve meeting agenda items), and then prepare for another meeting–a special Retreat at the Senior Center two days later on April 6.

April 6, 2013 Council Retreat

April 06, 2013 City Council Retreat Minutes

This was referred to as “the all options on the table” meeting. This is, hands down, the most informative meeting I’ve ever heard. It explains pretty much everything about where we were, how we compare with other cities, various possibilities and basically how we got to today. It’s over three hours, but it is fast-paced and anything but boring because it is so action-packed. And you quickly realise that the participants were completely aware of the stakes involved.

It’s interesting that they chose to hold such an important planning meeting–with lots of graphs and charts, in a place with poor audio, no video, and lots of airplane noise, at 9AM on a Saturday morning.

Radical or Traditional

There were two sets of talking points, ‘Radical’ and ‘Traditional’.

You can read the list for yourself in those minutes, but to give you a sense of the ‘radical ideas’, one was to move City Hall down to the Marina and then open up 11th Ave for commercial development. Another was to outsource the police to King County (as Burien, Normandy Park and SeaTac all do, by the way.). Another was to un-incorporate various sections of the city (not the whole town!) which had previous been annexed, but with the experience of time, had proven to be obvious economic losers. All options really were on the table and one can only applaud the Council for having the courage to discuss these things in public.

But some of the non-radical ideas were not exactly mild salsa either. They include grande lower-level staff cuts totalling over $1,000,000 per annum. And Economic Development Director? Assistant City Manager? Gone. Reduce our reliance on consultants. Combine various departments. Go ‘paperless’. And, end most of the ‘citizen advisory groups’, including the public planning commission.

One thing that stands out to me is the annoyance of a couple of CMs (led by Pina) that the City Manager has all these ideas on the table, but has no numbers to indicate the potential benefits for each. How can they possibly choose without more information!? Sheckler points out that there will be a political cost, so they have to know what they are getting themselves into.

City Manager Piasecki calmly points out that the point of the meeting is to ask the Council to choose which options to research. Each of these bold options will take a ton of research to run the numbers and they can’t possibly study them all. So, how about if the Council whittles down the obvious non-starters, elevate the ones that have obvious appeal and then go from there. And as the conversation progresses, it’s clear why he is saying that. Although various CMs say they are interested in the numbers, they have obvious biases for or against various ideas–regardless of how much money they might raise or save.

June 6, 2013 City Council Meeting

In June, the City Manager presents a report and some recommendations on implementing the ideas discussed at the April 6, 2013. There is also a big presentation on IT and the whole ‘going paperless’ thing. (For the first time councilmembers will be getting their own computers)

Update from April 4 Study Session-June 06, 2013 City Council Packet

August 3, 2013 Budget Retreat

August 3, 2013 Budget Retreat Packet

At the annual Budget Retreat, the ideas from April 6 were re-visited. None of the ‘radical ideas’ went anywhere, but it did end the Public Planning Agency in a 5-1 vote (Carmen Scott being the lone ‘no’.) The main sentiment being expressed by Sheckler, “We can always bring it back any time we want to.”

Aftermath

The Council actually doubled-down on the use of consultants, a practice that has only increased over time. But some of the traditional ideas definitely went somewhere.

Eventually it did consolidate the roles of Assistant City Manager and Economic Development into a single hire, Michael Matthias
There were a series of staff cuts
Increases in utility taxes were implemented
Red light cameras were installed
Paid Parking at the Marina did get started
And it did end most citizen advisory groups

Recovery

As they say, “history is written by the winners.” The story told by the current majority is that they “saved the city”, which implies a certain “all or nothing” thinking:

If not for the new City Manager and Council’s strategy and courage the City would have ‘gone under’, ie. “swallowed by Kent!” I’m convinced that at least some of that jazz comes from April 6, 2013. Bob Sheckler was quite correct to worry about even talking about ‘radical options’. Just talking about unincorporating a few parts of the City were pretty easy to turn into “We’re all gonna diiiiiie!”
That things were foundering and, when the 2016 Council took over, ‘the ship was righted’ in short order.

As those meetings demonstrate, neither of these assertions are particularly accurate.

In fact, there were options for fixing the immediate deficits the City was experiencing–as well as lots of long-term ideas.
And also, the ideas which the current majority tout as ‘tough decisions’ were all discussed in 2013. Love ’em or hate ’em, they all took time to put into action and then take effect.
Finally, and here is your moment of calming zen for the day, government budgets are like the tides. The energy driving the system starts building years before the wavefront hits the proverbial Marina. 😀

So even as those people sat there one Saturday morning in April of 2013, as City Manager Matthias is fond of saying, ‘macro-economic forces’ were already starting to build.

Housing prices were recovering (slowly.)
Construction was recovering (slowly.) Various projects such as the Four Points Hotel and Des Moines Creek Business Park were coming on-line–bringing big slugs of one-time money.

It just so happened that the recovery from ‘The Great Recession’ was the slowest in modern American history. So it took almost eight years for Des Moines to reap the benefits of that recovery.

We had a couple of years of relatively good performance, and then COVID hit.

It’s like déjà vu all over again…

And one could say the same thing about the previous decade. There was a recovery after 9/11, the City seemed on an upwarded trajectory with absolutely booming home sales and a much healthier downtown than people seem to remember now and then… 2008’s Great Recession.

As the Finance Director points out at the April 6 Retreat, Des Moines seems to go through these ‘waves’ every so often. Councilmember Carmen Scott comments that the City should stop spending so much and (once and for all) commit to building a healthy reserve.

No one is consistent

But it’s also worth remembering that Scott, one of the most conservative members of a conservative City Council, was also the driving force behind the Beach Park restoration. She kept pushing to spend a lot of money to preserve those ‘old buildings’, at a time when the City was hemorrhaging cash. (Which is why she was also the lone vote for retaining the public planning commission.) She had a soft spot for historic preservation.

I’m not picking on Councilmember Scott, not at all. Though she and I would have disagreed on many things, I too have a soft spot for historic preservation and I’m glad she pushed for something that seemed so extravagant at the time because I know it was the right thing to do long term.

But on the other hand, if no one has the will to say ‘no’, you should expect to start tanking.

The funny thing is…

If you know that Des Moines is cyclical, you can remain calm and do something cool like the Beach Park and not turn it into a hair on fire deal. It’s actually quite hard for a city to go out of business. We can simply cut services and raise taxes. It sucks, and it’s not healthy to always be focusing on ‘now’ but we can (and do) do it.

But my takeaway from that year is mixed.

On the one hand, those meetings have the dynamic I think we should want from our government. The staff are saying: lead. The councilmembers are not all that far apart ideologically and they do seem willing to work together to come to some kind of consensus.

The Council makes some choices, but ultimately cannot seem to land on any vision, which was kinda the point of these meetings–finding a new direction leading to long term success.

I would argue that restoring the Beach Park, finishing the Des Moines Creek Trail, Carmen Scott’s passion, things that helped the city tank, were also among the few truly visionary items accomplished in that era because although they were part of the financial pain, they are things that everyone agrees are great and will continue to be great forever. But they were never part of some holistic ‘vision’.

You have to want it…

And I would also note that the Council was willing to dump all the Citizen stuff because of low participation rates. It was a Catch-22. Why have all those ‘citizen groups’ if no one shows up?

But it’s also notable that the Council did have that most important of meetings at a time and place which almost guaranteed poor public enagement–a bit like the September 27, 2022 Marina Town Hall also held at the Senior Center.

It’s easy to blame the public for checking out, but that absolves government from any responsibility for bringing people together. A City is a corporation. In most corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, if customers are losing interest, one has a strong motivator to regain it. But a municipal corporation like Des Moines can keep cranking whether the public is there or not; and that creates all kinds of incentives to avoid keeping your customers in the game.

The one visionary thing I wish the council of 2013 had considered was to do something real to break that cycle of declining public engagement. Rather than save some short-term money and dump all that ‘citizen’ jazz, I think it would have been better to spend a few bucks and try to revive them. Maybe it woulda worked, maybe not. But if the Council could, itself, not reach consensus on a grand vision, it may not have been the worst idea in the world, especially with the onset of social media, to let the public have a whack at it.

It may not only be ‘good hygiene’ to encourage the public to show up, it may also be what we need to develop the compelling ‘vision’ people have talked about for so many decades.

Marina, Transparency

223rd Explainer

5 Comments

There seems to be a ton of confusion about any number of aspects of the Marina proposals. This article addresses what is arguably the central bit of real estate around which everything else revolves: 223rd Street.

The Big Picture

The original idea for Marina Redevelopment was to have a ‘Marina Steps’ to allow pedestrians to walk down from 223rd to the Marina floor. Those ‘steps’ would be book-ended by two construction projects. Parcel A to the north side and an Adaptive Purpose Building to the south. All the activity revolves around those Marina Steps.

Parcel A

In November of 2021 the Council voted to give the City Manager the authority to negotiate with one such developer to build a ’boutique hotel’ on Parcel A.

Marina Floor directly below Overlook I and 223rd, facing west towards the Harbor Master’s house.

Turn around. Where the white fence ends? That’s the foot of 223rd. The area inside that white fence is Parcel A. The bit under South Shores Condos would be the Marina Steps.

Now walk up to the fence. Hear the rushing water? That’s the outfall for the 223rd storm water, one of the main arteries for storm water flowing into Puget Sound for all of Des Moines.

Now look south. That area under South Shores Condo heading down to the road would be the Marina Steps.Past that about where the gate is which divides the road, the City has proposed building an Adaptive Purpose Building to house the Harbormaster’s Office, SR3 and boat storage. The boat storage is referred to as ‘Dry Stack’. So, the APB would be big. How big? It would extend south to the edge of CSR Marine.

Across the road are the dry sheds. The proposal calls for removing them, as well as the Harbormaster’s house to make room for the Adaptive Purpose Building and perhaps a covered Pavilion for a year-round farmer’s market.

OK, now look right (north). That’s Parcel A! Also known as the ugly white fence place with the propane tanks.

The north boundary of Parcel A is Mariner Condos. Overlooking it are ‘The Cliffs’ condos on 5th Ave. This was (initially) considered a better spot for a hotel view-wise. In the September 27, 2022 proposal it will, instead, be a parking garage.

Can’t imagine why I didn’t pursue a career in the arts. 😀 I just wanted you to see how the ‘Marina Steps’ might consist of one or more gently sloping wind-y paths (or ramps) heading down to the Marina floor. The equally artistic orange box represents the proposed hotel and/or parking garage and -that- structure’s impact on the Marina-space. Since that hillside is higher, there is, perhaps, a potential for more height.

OK, here’s the tricky part. Since the Marina Steps don’t exist, we have to strap on our James Bond Thunderball Jet Pack and fly up to the top of the hillside. Weeeeeeee…. 😀

Steps…

Whew, we made it! (Sorry for the Dad Joke. 😀 ) Nevertheless, we’re now at Overlook I, looking west–aka the foot of 223rd Street.

The ‘steps’ are below you, underneath South Shores Condos. On the Marina floor to the left of the ‘steps’ (green) is the Adaptive Purpose Building, which extends south to the edge of CSR Marina ( about 225th-ish.

And to the right (orange) is Parcel A, which nestles under the Cliffs condos on 5th Ave above. The northern boundary being the Mariner Condos.

Again, Parcel A is where the original ’boutique hotel’ was going to be located, but as of September 27, 2022 is being reconsidered as a parking garage. The point being that both the north parking lot and both sides of the Marina Steps (Parcel A and the Adaptive Purpose Building) are large parcels of public land (aka ‘The Marina Floor) that the City is considering selling off to private developers.

Look down and slight right. Woah, I’m gettin’ dizzy. That’s Parcel A. aka 2021’s Hotel, 2022’s Parking Garage.

Now look right. That’s the Cliffs Condos–overlooking Parcel A from 5th Ave.

OK, now turn around. That’s South Shores Condos, which would overlook the Marina Steps. The ‘bioswales’ would flow by there?

One final note: Since the Adaptive Purpose Building is being considered as a permanent home for SR3, that puts that southern parcel of land back in play. But for what? The City has not discussed any plans. But the City spent a considerable amount of money helping with the buildout (running utilities to the site). And since the parcel has already been leased out once, it is logical to assume it will also be on the table for private development.

I hope it’s not really ‘steps’…

I keep putting the word steps in ‘air quotes’ because the Marina Steps Project isn’t really a full set of ‘steps’. The City calls it ‘Marina Steps’ because the current idea was floated by our original consultant, who also worked on the Harbor Steps in Seattle down the road from the Seattle Art Museum–which is a series of steps.

But the City’s proposal would actually need to be some form of gently sloped, wind-y walking path extending from 223rd down to the Marina floor. And my hope would be that it not only be ADA-compliant, but ADA-friendly.

I keep saying ‘down’, but to my mind it’s actually more important that this ‘path’ or ‘ramp’ or whatever you want to call it, be easy to get up to 223rd. The Harbor Steps have blocks to make it easy to get up to 1st Ave. But we do not. A key goal of Marina Redevelopment is to drive tourism up to Marine View Drive. So, it better not be an aerobic workout, that’s all I gotta say. 😀

This is the only other available drawing that gives one any sense of what that might be like. But I hasten to add that it’s several years old, there are many options, and the whole thing is now rendered soumewhat moot with the new (September 27, 2022) proposal.

But see that fuzzy building just to the north of the wind-y path (…er… ‘steps’)? That’s was the only rendering of what a ‘Parcel A’ boutique hotel might have been like. And you can just make out a hazy windowed building above the tents–that would be now be the Adaptive Purpose Building.

Swales up 223rd

Let’s start walking backwards up 223rd. You’re heading east but still looking west. Ignore the stares. 🙂

Looking west to Overlook I (the end of 223rd) from Sixth Ave. On your left is South Shore Condos. The Marina Steps would be allow you to walk down from here via that wind-y path under those condos. Underneath the bike path? There’s the huge storm water system which leads out to where we started. That would be the ‘bioswale’. ie. the stormwater flow would be exposed in an attractive way which would look like an ‘urban creek’.

This is 605 223rd (the original site for SR3) a bit further up the street heading towards 7th Ave.

From 605 223rd looking west. One drawing I’ve seen shows the ‘urban creek’ (ie. the bioswale) flowing along here (the rushing water is depicted here in a highly realistic green trapezoid. 😀 ) But how far the ‘creek’ would go up 223rd is an open question.

Anyhoo, alongside that path would be some sort of water feature which is sometimes referred to as a ‘bioswale’ or an ‘urban creek’. But basically it’s just exposing the bajillion gallons of storm water which already flow under 223rd Street and out to Puget Sound. (See the round fountain/pool thing just north of the Harbormaster’s House? That one possibility for the outfall.)

But ‘bioswale’ is not some futuristic ‘tech’. It simply means making a culvert with rocks and plants in attractive manner (hence ‘urban creek’). The rocks and plants filter the water, which a typical storm pipe does not.

I’m not saying it’s not a good idea; it’s fine. But it’s just not some big ‘green’ breakthrough. We already do that (albeit in a less fashionable way) in various spots of the City–like this new retention pond along 216th Street. In fact, if you’ve ever seen any retention pond or a culvert with rocks and plants? Same concept: It’s a conscious design to let nature filter the water in the most efficient way possible. 🙂 But the challenges of making an outfall that large into something aesthetically pleasing, safe and cost-effective may not be trivial. Which is why we just got a $300,000 grant from the State to study the idea. It’ll take a few years just to work out the engineering.

Why?

Like my colleagues, I thought the basic idea of a Marina Steps was a fine idea. Unlike my colleagues, I thought that the whole Parcel A negotiation was a terrible idea from the jump.

In my opinion, until we understand the basic engineering of the ‘urban creek’ and the wind-y trail (…er… ‘steps’) we have no business moving forward on anything else in that area. The Steps are the pivot point for the entire Marina.

But I couldn’t figure out why the rest of the community wasn’t as upset as I was about Parcel A (ie. ’boutique hotel’.)

One reason may be because any discussion of the Parcel A development (bad) will almost have to also talk about the Marina Steps (good) because they’re inter-connected. I’m doing it now. Maybe people thought that they were one and the same. Not at all. 2021’s hotel is now 2022’s parking garage.
Another reason people may not have been as bothered about a hotel on Parcel A as they seem to be now about having a hotel in the North Parking Lot? They probably had no idea what Parcel A even is. 😀 And that’s partly why I’m being so repetitive here. I really want you to get a better sense of what the pieces of the puzzle are.

Regardless, if you are not thrilled about having a hotel in the north parking lot, you should also find the Parcel A proposal equally unpleasant. Both proposals block just as many views and obstruct just as much open space. And both would give up control of a huge chunk of the City’s most precious assets for a very small amount of ongoing revenue–all for the promise of someday attracting more revenue to the City. The only difference between Parcel A hotel and North Parking lot hotel? Where the ‘boxes’ are located.

The question you should ask about every one of these projects: What is the public benefit? I supported the Marina Steps because making the Marina more accessible is a no-brainer. Everyone benefits.

But if any of the private development ideas are really huge economic drivers, the City should be able to submit evidence to support those claims. The City went so far as to do a study of the economic benefits of dock replacement. But it has done nothing to prove the long-term economic benefits of any aspect of these business-driven projects.

Now…

New design ideas from Skylab Architects, rolled out at September 27, 2022 Community Meeting. Hotel now in north parking lot. Parcel A is now a parking garage.

Crude, unofficial Google Earth Pro rendering of Skylab proposal showing elevations and impacts to Marina floor

The Community Meeting on September 27, 2022 changed my thinking. The City Manager and Mayor, in a totally brazen move simply announced that the hotel would be sited in the North Parking Lot. Why? One reason that was given was, listen to the recording I made for yourself, the developer likes it better.

Why should a developer build a hotel next to a water feature and wind-y paths when those features might not be ready for many years? Far easier to build a free-standing unit in the middle of a parking lot.

This willingness to skirt the proper Council procedures has now made me (and should make you) skeptical of everything–including the 223rd Steps itself. Because notice that Parcel A is still in play–it’s just been turned into a parking garage (to make up for the spaces lost in the north parking lot.)

Solutions…

We need the resident-led public planning commission we had until 2013.
We need the Council-led Marina Committee we also used to have to manage the Marina in a cohesive manner.
And we need the Marina Virtual Town Hall system we budgeted for in 2021.

Frankly, my main concern is not the hotel in the north parking lot. I believe you, the public, are sufficiently outraged to handle that. My concern is that the City will agree to drop that idea, you’ll declare victory and go home. And then? Something else happens.

This is a long game. Just the engineering study on the bioswale thingy may take several years.

As I said, the Parcel A idea of 202` was/is just as bad as the north parking lot idea of 2022. The only difference was (and is) the amount of public awareness.

For 2023, let’s try something different: a transparent, community-driven plan.

Airport, Neighborhoods, Policy, Transparency, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 12/18/2022

2 Comments

Get get that 3rd COVID Booster (the new ‘bivalent’ model.) Now. Deaths are slowly rising. Again, again, it takes about a month to achieve full efficacy. They’re doing walk-ins now pretty much everywhere. 🙂

This Week

Nothing! 😀 Please fill in the cold, empty days leading up to the joy of Christmas by giving me a call or having a chat. (206) 878-0578

OK… I do have this to keep me warm. 🙂

MESSI AND ARGENTINA LIFT THE 2022 FIFA WORLD CUP TROPHY 🏆🇦🇷 pic.twitter.com/ykYsPchLkX

— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) December 18, 2022

Last Week

Monday: There have been three Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) Workshops and the big complaint was that same ol’ same ol’ public outreach. The organiser was amazingly polite and patient and supportive, but he also made something clear to people who feel ‘blindsided’. They have not been blindsided.

The fact is that neither Thurston or Pierce County have been exactly ‘raising the alarm’. And neither has South King County on behalf of Enumclaw. Frankly, each City and County also has an obligation to inform/educate their public, rather than wait for a report to find out that they are in the running.

We have exactly the same obligations regarding the SAMP. Whether there is a second airport or not is irrelevant to Des Moines because the SAMP is coming here in 2027. And so far? We’ve done nothing.

On the other hand the people who might be affected by a second airport have 20-25 years to mount a legal defense.

My main complaint with the CACC is that it does nothing for Des Moines. There has been a lot of talk about making that new airport ‘greener’, ‘quieter’, ‘less polluting’, ‘friendlier to the community’.

All that sounds wonderful. So… we should insist that if everyone wants a second airport so much? They should also apply those same improvements to Sea-Tac Airport now. It would be immoral to make a ‘healthier’ second airport, even as Sea-Tac continues in exactly the opposite direction..

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda) The SAMP keeps getting pushed down the road. Also, the International Arrivals Facility is now going to be subject to some penalties for not meeting various compliance deadlines. This will sound snarky, but this is often the case with Port construction projects that come in “on time and on budget!” You just have to wait a few months for the litigation. 😀 Of course, one has to sound optimistic, but if I could whisper one thing in every Port Commissioner’s ear it would, “humility.” The Port has a history of scandal because it is one of the last bastions of real ‘capitalism’.

Tuesday: MRSC Seminar on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) aka ‘mother-in-law apartments’. I’ve taken a good deal of continuing education classes for this gig and I have to say, this was the best training I’ve been to thus far. There are a lot of opportunities for improving our ADU Code. The big takeaway? An ADU is not a ‘small building’, it’s a small house. It much more expensive and difficult to permit than many people think going in because it requires all the services of a ‘real’ house! One great idea, I heard was Pre-approved Plans. For example, Leavenworth has four ready to go (and very nice) plans that you can purchase for $1,200. (That’s a steal over hiring an architect.) And when you do, you are guaranteed a fast-track permitting process that can take as little as two weeks. We have lots of homes with enough land for an ADU and we should make it as easy as possible for home owners to get more out of their property and provide more housing options.

Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) (Agenda) The group voted to fund their first two projects (in Burien.)

Saturday: 11AM-3PM Big Thank You to North Hill Espresso (and SANTA!) for sponsoring COVID Boosters through King County Community Health Access Program (CHAP.). They offer -free- Orca Lift cards, health insurance, and baby/child dental services. Go to KingCounty.gov/Outreach and look for CHAP.

Everyone got free mochas, hot choc, sandwiches, cookies. And. AND… free burgers and hand cut fries from the Soul Fusion Food Truck soulfusion.com. (which I hope is coming to DM on a regular basis because… I’m not lyin’… that is one TASTY burger!

2022 City Manager Performance Review: Comments/Scoring

Here are the City Council Written Comments for the 2022 City Manager Performance Review. This is a public document. You’ll note that it is divided into categories. Each question can have comments, but what really matters is the score for each question. A positive score being considered >=2.

And here is a table I whacked together showing those scores, with overall and by category averages.

					LEADERSHIP								BUDGET				COMMUNICATION					OVERALL
	Planning And Management	Supervision And Delegation	Forges Compromises	Hiring	Leadership	Ethical	Operational Efficiency	Completion Of Prior Objectives	Risk Management	Job Knowledge	(Avg)	Financial Management	Analytical	(Avg)	With Council	With Public	Credits Council	Accepts Direction	Sensitivity	Honest, Fair	(Avg)	(Avg)
Mahoney	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	3.9	4	4	4	4	3	4	3	3	4	3.5	3.8
Harris	1		0	1	1	0	0	0	3	3	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Buxton	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	3.9	4	4	4	3		4	3	3	4	3.4	3.8
Achziger	1		1	2	1	0				1	1	1	1	1	0	0		0	0	0	0	0.8
Pennington	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Nutting	3	3	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	3.2	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3.3	3.4
Steinmetz	4	3	2	3	3	3	4	3	4	4	3.3	4	4	4	3	2	2	3	1	2	2.2	3.1

(Avg)	3	3.6	2.6	3.1	2.9	2.4	3.2	2.8	3.7	3.4	2.9	3.1	2.9	3	2.4	2	3	2.4	2	2.4	2.3	2.9

The averages are a bit weird because more than one of us left various questions blank or N/A. Frankly, it’s impossible for us to honestly evaluate several of the categories due to the separation between the Council and the staff. It’s not like we have opportunities to see Mr. Matthias’ management on a daily basis. And for that reason (and more), I strongly urge the public to read the Council’s comments as I do not believe that these 18 numbers accurately represent how each of us feel things are going.

The Review Process

On our Council, the Mayor arbitrarily sets the agenda for these meetings and the format of this review. This is not specified in our Rules of Procedure. And in my opinion that is one of several ‘authorities’ the Mayor has taken on which should change. As with everything else, one can’t really hold the Mayor solely responsible for this since none of my colleagues seem to object.

In previous years, we would receive each other’s notes in advance. This year we did not. So much for discussion.

Cherry Picking…

I’ve never argued about Mr. Matthias’ employment contract based on salary. I’ve argued based on performance, which is another thing this system doesn’t take into account.

We don’t evaluate our situation objectively to performance metrics in comparable cities. And we don’t evaluate our situation objectively based on our own performance goals like any other corporation.

At the end of the day, we can all cherry pick. And we do.

But that is not meant as a slag against Mr. Matthias. I’d say the same thing with any City Manager.

My low score is based (mostly) on bad attitude and bad access to information. As as I said, a lot of the questions none of us can answer because we can have no idea of the internal workings of the corporation. (We were offered a single 15 minute meeting with staff next month. Fifteen minutes. Once a year.)

I can, however, do those comparisons with other cities–and with our own city and the past. It’s harder than it should be, but I can do that.

But when you hear me complain about anything, there will always be independent and objective research behind it.

The Future

But most CMs cannot do that much work. Most CMs have day jobs and families and won’t have the time or the background expertise. They’ll have to take what they see and hear at face value. And that is what I hope to change.

In closing the year, I want to remind readers of something that should be obvious. When you hear “the State of the Union” from the President, you’re getting their point of view. It’s not a lie, but it’s also not an objective assessment of how the Country is doing. A city is no different. Every message you will hear from the City (and city) comes with a POV. It’s true–and the accomplishments are real, but it’s also not the whole truth. It’s a press release.

Part of the City Council’s job is to promote the City. But part of it is also to question that message.

When people talk about “how the city is doing” I want to have objective ways for residents to decide one way or the other.

Transparency

2022 City Manager Performance Review

And here is a table I whacked together showing those scores, with overall and by category averages.

					LEADERSHIP								BUDGET				COMMUNICATION					OVERALL
	Planning And Management	Supervision And Delegation	Forges Compromises	Hiring	Leadership	Ethical	Operational Efficiency	Completion Of Prior Objectives	Risk Management	Job Knowledge	(Avg)	Financial Management	Analytical	(Avg)	With Council	With Public	Credits Council	Accepts Direction	Sensitivity	Honest, Fair	(Avg)	(Avg)
Mahoney	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	3.9	4	4	4	4	3	4	3	3	4	3.5	3.8
Harris	1		0	1	1	0	0	0	3	3	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Buxton	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	3.9	4	4	4	3		4	3	3	4	3.4	3.8
Achziger	1		1	2	1	0				1	1	1	1	1	0	0		0	0	0	0	0.8
Pennington	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Nutting	3	3	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	3.2	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3.3	3.4
Steinmetz	4	3	2	3	3	3	4	3	4	4	3.3	4	4	4	3	2	2	3	1	2	2.2	3.1

(Avg)	3	3.6	2.6	3.1	2.9	2.4	3.2	2.8	3.7	3.4	2.9	3.1	2.9	3	2.4	2	3	2.4	2	2.4	2.3	2.9

The Review Process

In previous years, we would receive each other’s notes in advance. This year we did not. So much for discussion.

Cherry Picking…

I’ve never argued about Mr. Matthias’ employment contract based on salary. I’ve argued based on performance, which is another thing this system doesn’t take into account.

At the end of the day, we can all cherry pick. And we do.

But that is not meant as a slag against Mr. Matthias. I’d say the same thing with any City Manager.

I can, however, do those comparisons with other cities–and with our own city and the past. It’s harder than it should be, but I can do that.

But when you hear me complain about anything, there will always be independent and objective research behind it.

The Future

Part of the City Council’s job is to promote the City. But part of it is also to question that message.

When people talk about “how the city is doing” I want to have objective ways for residents to decide one way or the other.

Policy, Transparency, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 12/11/2022

5 Comments

This Week

Monday: Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) Workshop. If you are interested in learning more about the possible ‘second airport’, there will be a public workshop on Thursday.

Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda)

Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) (Agenda)

Saturday: 11AM-3PM North Hill Espresso. Santa! COVID Boosters! Orca Lift Cards! 😀

Last Week

Thursday: MRSC Land Use Case Law Update Winter 2022. It covered homeless shelters, what the Growth Management Act does/does not control and also how wetlands can/cannot be repurposed for future development. This was very timely given the Land Use item on the meeting agenda below.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video Part #1) (Video Part #2) Our final meeting of the year was a fitting end to the first year of the current Council. Hoo boy. 😀

December 8 Meeting Highlights

This was our last meeting of the year. As has become the norm, there was a fairly packed Consent Agenda and several surprise presentations from the City Manager.

Public Comment

As has become more and more common there were several excellent comments from the public. A small note: Until about 2018, the Council Comments would occur directly after Public Comment, near the beginning of the meeting. I can only speculate as to why they were moved to the end of the meeting, but since everyone left, no one was around to hear me compliment those members of the public for their great work.

One woman used the word ‘progressive’ in describing her opposition to a hotel in the north parking lot. And I agree with that. Wasting money is the least progressive thing one can do, because (channeling my very conservative father-in-law) “You cannot help people if you don’t have any money.” A city should spend the resources it has on things that demonstrably provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of residents.

Also: if you want to see the emails we receive from the public, they are now showing up attached to each Agenda Packet the day after the meetings. Here’s what you do:

Go to the City of Des Moines WA Council Portal – Meeting List
Find the meeting you want and click on the link to view the PDF
Under ‘correspondence’ there should now be a link which takes you to another PDF with all the emails.

It looks as though the staff are starting from the most recent meetings and (hopefully) working backwards. But the most recent ones are now there. Hurray.

City Manager’s Report

As I said, there were several unannounced presentations from the City Manager.

Accolades from Chief Thomas

Chief Thomas wanted to praise not one but two community members:

Former Councilmember Luisa Bangs, who continues to serve on the Chief’s private advisory group, as well as the Police Foundation.
Councilmember Jeremy Nutting. I’ll have more to say about this at the end of this article. Here is the DMPD’s press release.

Farmers Market Update

There was also a presentation given by the Farmers Market’s President Kim Richmond and Manager Suzy Novak. I made a reference to the following gag from Blazing Saddles: “My mind is a raging torrent flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives!” Nobody appreciates the classics anymore. :D.

Perhaps that sounds a bit sarcastic (c’est moi? 😀 ), but for most of this stuff? I just wanna see a piece of paper throughout the year. Yes, I know that a part of City Council Meetings is meant to give groups a chance to shine, but in the current regime, the Council gets no report on any of these groups’ operations during the year so take this comment more as a failure of our ‘liaison’ system than any grouse about the groups per se.

Gross sales	$513,000
Avg # of Food Vendors	55
Open Days	18
Avg. One-Way Time to market	2.5hrs
Avg Revenue/Vendor	$9,327
Avg. Revenue/Day	$28,500
Avg. Revenue/Vendor/Day	$518

(Would you drive five hours to make $518? That’s what our farmers do for us. Thank you. 🙂 )

But that’s the information I want to see–and without having to bring it up. Because, for the 27th time, the City web site used to have all that info. Every group and advisory committee posted their essential deets on-line at least a few times a year.

I’m only banging on about the Farmers Market because last year the City started using them as a pitch for ‘Marina Redevelopment’–talking about it as some possible revenue source if only it could be made year round!!!! Not. Cool. That false hope mines people’s desperation for a grocery store and I resent it. Because I resent having to keep reminding people that the Farmers Market does not make money, the City actually subsidises it, and will continue to do so for many years to come. Using the Farmers Market to ‘sell’ all these bogus “public/private partnerships” is not as shameless as the ferry. But close.

If we put the information on the web site, then, when various groups showed up, they can simply take a bow–and engage in rivulets of thought. 😀

RULE 30. All statutory boards and commissions and Council citizen advisory bodies shall provide the Council with copies of minutes of all meetings… Reports to the City Council shall be made during Administrat,on Reports as needed to keep the Council apprised of the actions of the body. Not less than one time per year, the board, commission or citizen advisory body shall have a representative provide an update to the Council of the body’s activities.

But to end on a positive note, Ms. Novak is a born raconteur. And I mean that as a real compliment. I made a remark, which was not a joke, about the wall behind the podium. The City is doing a remodel and it would not be the worst idea in the world to simply place a green screen there (think: news stations) so that great speakers such as herself could provide compelling backdrops to augment their presentations. I’d love to see piccies of the vendors, the market events, happy customers, etc. displayed behind her as she spoke.

Oh one last thing while I’m on a roll… am I the only one who thinks the podium could be lowered a few inches? Ms. Novak is an average size human being. But on TV, I think it makes everyone under 6’2″ look short. Please let me know your opinion on that burning issue of the day. 😀

Consent Agenda

City Manager 5% increase

The full contract and its history here.

I voted no. In my first year, I said that I could not value Mr. Matthias performance. And then Mayor Matt Pina got a bit cranky and said

“Twenty Nine Million. The proof is in the pudding.”

Meaning that he was deeply impressed by the fact that our General Fund that year was $29 million. OK, fine. But this year our General Fund is $25.4 million. So… 😀

This year, Councilmember Steinmetz mention a resident’s Facebook comment to support Mr. Matthias’ managerial skills. Well that’s good enough for me! 😀

I hear residents spouting all the time about how ‘great’ a job the City Manager is doing, or how ‘terrible’ a job he’s doing. And I have absolutely no idea how they come to these conclusions. I mean, I read the financials and I struggle. When we say “The City is doing great” I’m like “compared to what, exactly?” Des Moines 2012? Or comparable cities? Or…?

My feelings about ‘management’ in general come down to the Parable of the Centurion. We can’t possibly know what’s really going on. So the less open the communication is on the web site, the reports, the presentations, the more it makes me wonder what is going on that I can’t see. If the City isn’t transparent, even when something good happens (which is a lot!), my first thought is, “Yeah, but how are things going in city[a,b,c…]” A lack of transparency makes one unable to take anything for granted.

And despite what you heard, these raises are not automatic. And I can prove it. You see, we actually have to vote for them. 🙂

Also, the mid-year performance review we never perform has nothing to do with COVID. We’ve crammed lots and lots of things into meetings in my three years on the Council; some important and some? Eh… not so much.

I always go back to Deputy Mayor Buxton’s 2020 motion to get rid of that clause of the contract entirely. Neither the City Manager or the Mayor want to do it, so it doesn’t get on an agenda. Full stop.

Section #5, subsection #4
The City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of the
Employee quarterly for the first year of employment. After the first year, performance evaluations will occur at least twice annually, in April and October of each year, unless otherwise mutually agreed by the City Council and the Employee. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with job performance criteria developed by the City Council, and in accordance with Des Moines Municipal Code 2.04.050.

Court Room Audio system

This is to do with that green screen (er side wall 😀 ) Actually it’s an item that should have been on a main agenda. Last year I made a motion to budget a permanent A/V upgrade for the City Council so that we could provide hybrid meetings (Zoom) after we went back to in-person meetings. Got nowhere. Now? We’ll end up doing it anyhoo and the costs seem more expensive than the quotes I saw from other cities when I researched their hybrid systems. This will give us the capability to do hybrid meetings, but who knows if we’ll vote for it. And of course, we’ve shot ourselves in the foot by taking away the opportunity for the public to participate remotely.

Public Hearing (Land Use Moratorium)

There was also a Public Hearing on that 216th land use moratorium which so many people were puzzled about (including moi.) For example, I expected residents along 216th to show up. Instead two people showed up to express concerns about the southern end of the area (which are now zoned residential and are wetlands near Barnes Creek Trail left over from WSDOT SR-509 surplus.) Those homeowners were/are concerned that this might be a repeat of an issue from years ago.

And that’s all I’m gonna say about it for now because… there’s literally nothing else to say about it. 😀

I voted against it because I’m sick of all the ‘SURPRISES!’ Planning is supposed to be, well… planned. There should be no ’emergency’ nothing for a while unless there is a genuine emergency.

And by the way, again, again, this moratorium was not (as a colleague claimed) ‘routine’. The last time we did something similar was twenty years ago, right next door. I wrote about the history of that emergency moratorium here and that event was definitely not a routine situation.

New Items For Consideration

This is what I call one of those ‘conversations you cannot have.’ There are many important issues that need to be discussed. But for many reasons, because they are considered so ‘toxic’, people never do. The desire to avoid appearing impolite or hurting someone’s feelings just isn’t worth the cost. And that is why they never get better.

As I wrote earlier, at the opening of the December 8, 2022 meeting, Chief Thomas praised Councilmember Nutting for going above and beyond to help a business owner. I fully agree with that. However, there is much more to this than a (very) good deed. Here is the press release the DMPD put out before the meeting…

But as a member of the City Council, here is how I read the sequence of events:

The Councilmember developed an idea for a program in a private discussion with the Chief.
That same day, the Chief pitched it to the City Manager who immediately began implementing a program, with a budget, that is not directly related to law-enforcement.
That same night, after a break-in at a local business, and apparently because the police communications officer did not know who else to contact, the police contacted the Councilmember to determine how to secure the building, and instead, Mr. Nutting showed up to perform a very good deed.
The Chief issued a press release announcing the program and praising the Councilmember.

And… no matter how worthy of praise Mr. Nutting’s efforts were, or how sensible the idea may sound at first glance, that is totally not how Council/Manager Government is supposed to work.

Here is how local government is supposed to work

If a Councilmember has an idea for whatever:

The CM brings the idea to the City Council.
If three CMs agree, the idea gets assigned to a committee for research. (And then the Chief or other staff are asked to evaluate the idea.)
The committee then reviews the staff report, develops a proposal, and if the Committee votes to move forward, the idea is forwarded to the full Council.
The full Council votes to establish a policy, or approve a resolution or an ordinance.

And then there is a press release announcing a new program.

That is Council/Manager Government. It’s not some ‘nice to have’. It’s how everything is supposed to work for a ton of reasons we’ll get to in a sec. But first…

At the New Items For Consideration, section of the meeting, I waited to see if anyone would raise that question. And? Councilmember Steinmetz started down the right path. Hurray for democracy! 😀

Councilmember Steinmetz: My understanding was that Councilmember Nutting was going to propose, uh, on the…

CM Nutting: I, yeah I didn’t know if we needed any of that or if it’s in the works behind the scene but go ahead and if there’s anything that needs to come in front of council with what uh um the chief and I have discussed and and um have taken care of with either getting supplies or whatever we need to do to get that in front of…

City Manager Matthias: You know, Councilmember, I think that um that we’re okay and if we were to need that we’ll bring it back to council.

CM Nutting: Perfect. Thank you Councilmember Steinmetz, I appreciate that.

Mayor Mahoney: All right. We’ll uh, we’ll let that go. Okay we’re going to start with uh board and committee reports…

The City Council is the legislative body and is tasked with developing legislation according to a specified process. We’re not supposed to wait to be asked only for what the City Manager feels is necessary or whenever he feels he needs to ask. We’re supposed to review and discuss every program that requires time/money and weigh it against the other needs of the City as part of a planned budget.

And no councilmember should be able to have a program implemented simply by mentioning an idea to a subordinate of the City Manager the same day. In fact, by State RCW, no Councilmember is allowed to suggest such a thing directly to staff.

Rule #17

Our Rules of Procedure define a heirarchy between the legislature (the City Council) and the executive (the City Manager.)

Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative branch solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any committee or member thereof shall give any orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately…

We should not even create the appearance that one can go directly to a staff member with an idea, and then they pass it onto the City Manager, who then implements a new program, thus bypassing the legislative process.

It’s a zero sum game…

Every idea that requires time and money deserves discussion. All seven of us have many good ideas. But with every idea there are always pluses and minuses. No matter how great an idea sounds, the time and money you spend on idea ‘A’ is time and money you do not have for idea ‘B’. Local government is a zero sum game.

I owned a restaurant. Our place also got broken into. Total PITA, which nobody should have to go through. You have to show up in the dead of night; the board-up service often costs what seems like an absolute fortune for some frickin’ plywood; and that’s before the real repair costs!

But on the other hand?

There are 24/7/365 commercial services to handle these events. So… is this really the best use of our commissioned officers of the law? Our Code Enforcement Officer already has more work than one person can handle. Do we really want to assign him to more duty? Maybe.
Also, that program will cost the City how much? Perhaps the same hours/dollars would be better spent, as other cities already do, on a program to provide discounted locking mailboxes (which would benefit everyone.) Or perhaps some other crime prevention program–as opposed to providing cleanup after a break-in. Maybe not.

Regardless, this is called budgeting and planning. That’s our job. We discuss things before we act because the City Council is supposed to be the legislative body. We don’t just throw up ideas based on “Hey, wouldn’t it be great if..?”

Oversight…

Another reason to maintain a professional distance is so that you can call the Administration out in the rare cases where it is necessary. It’s a bit tougher to perform oversight once you have benefited from this kind of press.

Politics…

Rule #17. is also meant to discourage the public from believing that some CMs enjoy a ‘special relationship’ with the administration. Again, without that professional distance, we get into the realm of politics:

Additionally, the Chief literally rewarded a Councilmember, who has already begun his re-election campaign, with a pretty awesome bit of free press. It created an impression of support from an administration that is, by law, supposed to be apolitical.

Second: Do you really want a government where residents think they can call a particular CM and say, “Hey there Councilmember. It looks like yer pretty tight with the Chief. Maybe you could you talk to him about…

But here’s the real problem…

Neither the Chief or City Manager saw any need to trouble the City Council. They just did it and put out a press release–without describing any details, by the way. So, it’s also totally vague to boot. Everything that sounds great about the program is everything that is wrong with it. And apparently the only reason my colleagues saw a possible need to discuss it as to make sure we were ‘dotting the i’s.’

And here’s my point:

This is why you wake up one day and… there’s a hotel in the north parking lot. Seriously. Because the question no one in the majority asked at that community meeting on September 27th was this:

Why was it OK for the Mayor to stand in front of a group of residents and announce a hotel in the north parking lot, when the City Council had already spent about $100k and two months going through another phoney-baloney RFQ process to site a hotel over on the other side of the Marina floor less than a year earlier?

November 2021: Exclusive development agreement negotiated for hotel on Parcel A after a two month RFQ process.
September, 2022: Mayor Mahoney announcing new hotel proposal for North Parking Lot at Des Moines Senior Center. At the time, the Council assumed that the previous agreement on Parcel A was still in effect.

On an individual level, I actually think Councilmember did a fantastic thing. I definitely would have voted to research the idea had it been presented in the correct manner.

And I’m sure that will carry absolutely no weight with anyone.

Because this is one of those ‘conversations you can never have’. But until we can have them, without defensiveness or hurt feelings, about a hundred things we should be able to talk about (like that hotel) can never really be addressed.

Policy, Transparency

One of those conversations you cannot have

Here is how local government is supposed to work

If a Councilmember has an idea for whatever:

The CM brings the idea to the City Council.
If three CMs agree, the idea gets assigned to a committee for research. (And then the Chief or other staff are asked to evaluate the idea.)
The committee then reviews the staff report, develops a proposal, and if the Committee votes to move forward, the idea is forwarded to the full Council.
The full Council votes to establish a policy, or approve a resolution or an ordinance.

And then there is a press release announcing a new program.

That is Council/Manager Government. It’s not some ‘nice to have’. It’s how everything is supposed to work for a ton of reasons we’ll get to in a sec. But first…

Councilmember Steinmetz: My understanding was that Councilmember Nutting was going to propose, uh, on the…

City Manager Matthias: You know, Councilmember, I think that um that we’re okay and if we were to need that we’ll bring it back to council.

CM Nutting: Perfect. Thank you Councilmember Steinmetz, I appreciate that.

Mayor Mahoney: All right. We’ll uh, we’ll let that go. Okay we’re going to start with uh board and committee reports…

Rule #17

Our Rules of Procedure define a heirarchy between the legislature (the City Council) and the executive (the City Manager.)

Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative branch solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any committee or member thereof shall give any orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately…

It’s a zero sum game…

But on the other hand?

There are 24/7/365 commercial services to handle these events. So… is this really the best use of our commissioned officers of the law? Our Code Enforcement Officer already has more work than one person can handle. Do we really want to assign him to more duty? Maybe.
Also, that program will cost the City how much? Perhaps the same hours/dollars would be better spent, as other cities already do, on a program to provide discounted locking mailboxes (which would benefit everyone.) Or perhaps some other crime prevention program–as opposed to providing cleanup after a break-in. Maybe not.

Oversight…

Politics…

But here’s the real problem…

And here’s my point:

November 2021: Exclusive development agreement negotiated for hotel on Parcel A after a two month RFQ process.
September, 2022: Mayor Mahoney announcing new hotel proposal for North Parking Lot at Des Moines Senior Center. At the time, the Council assumed that the previous agreement on Parcel A was still in effect.

On an individual level, I actually think Councilmember did a fantastic thing. I definitely would have voted to research the idea had it been presented in the correct manner.

And I’m sure that will carry absolutely no weight with anyone.

Transparency

(Not) everything you ever wanted to know about the City Manager’s salary (but were too polite to ask.)

1 Comment

On this week’s Agenda, in the Consent Agenda, will be an item to give the City Manager a 5% increase.

My initial reactions upon reading this weeks’ package were:

Such an item should never be in the Consent Agenda, which should only be for items that are truly routine. And regardless of one’s feelings on the matter, this is a decidedly non-routine item.
The background language for the item is…

The City Council has been provided the opportunity to complete a formal written performance evaluation. Based on the outcome of this performance evaluation, the City Council can consider approving a 5% pay increase consistent with the an annual increase percentage that eligible staff members may receive upon a successful performance evaluation.

As me gran might say, “I feel so honoured!” 😀

Some history…

2014

Mr. Matthias was hired in 2014 as both Economic Development Director and Assistant City Manager.

2016

In January, Mr. Matthias’ predecessor, Tony Piasecki, announced he would retire that August to coincide with his 20 years of service.

Despite what you may have heard, Mr. Piasecki did not ‘blindside’ anyone. He, in fact, conducted a very deliberate transition process, including preparing a number of documents to help forward his institutional knowledge to both his successor and the Council. He

As part of that transition, as early as April, Mr. Matthias was given control of the final budget process, which made punters think he was the designated successor.

An independent firm was hired to do a selection process and Mr. Matthias put his hat in the ring. The top three were brought in for meetings with the previous version of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Matthias was ranked fourth by the search firm, but for some reason was also included in those CAC interviews.

The top selection, by both the search firm and the CAC was offered the job. Mayor Pina called him to offer congratulations. But shortly thereafter, the winning applicant called back to say that he had changed his mind.

The Council met to discuss the situation. They could offer the job to the other top candidates or begin a new search process, with the possibility of leaving the CM slot temporarily open. Instead, they offered the job to Mr. Matthias, on an Interim basis, which he accepted at his existing salary of $153,000. He continued on as EDD.

2017

After a sort of trial period, in 2017 the ‘Interim’ was dropped. Mr. Matthias retained the dual role of City Manager and EDD and did not appoint an Assistant City Manager.

From that point on he has been given a series of fairly large raises because the Council felt he had been initially sort of ‘short-changed’ and partly because he was doing ‘double duty’–and best-in-class double duty at that.

2020

I joined the Council in January, 2020 and the question of his raise that year was indeed a full agenda discussion, with the full contact and pay increase from January 23, 2020 City Council Packet. It was one of the most informative discussions in my time on the Council and I urge everyone to watch it.

During that vote, there were two motions worthy of note.

That was the last meeting of Vic Pennington who (surprise!), from the dais, offered a motion to extend Mr. Matthias’ severance package from six to eighteen months of pay should the Council choose to terminate his contract. Essentially a poison pill. His quote I remember most was:

“If we lose (Michael Matthias) we lose this City.”

Traci Buxton made a motion to change the review process from twice a year to once. That was actually voted down. Because Mr. Matthias’ contract does specify not one but two reviews every year.

(Note that the Mayor soon thereafter announced he was changing parliamentary procedure to prevent such motions.)

And… in my three years on the Council we have never done that second (mid-year) review. Why? Because neither Mayor Pina or Mayor Mahoney has The Mayor simply doesn’t put the mid-year one on the agenda. And I mention this because that is the abuse of power people don’t see…

In Des Moines, except for issues required by State law, the Mayor can avoid many issues by simply refusing to put them on an agenda.

And the City Manager can also avoid executing on an item the Council has approved (like that Virtual Marina Town Hall we desperately need) because he also has a say on what items go on the agenda.

Get it? The Council can go so far as to vote for something, but if they don’t want to actually, you know, do it, the Mayor or City Manager can simply not put it on the agenda. And there is nothing the minority can do about it–because it takes a majority vote to override that malarkey.

That may sound similar to Congress–where many bills are introduced but never become law because the majority controls what bills come up for a vote. Not quite. The difference here is that once a law is passed at the State and Federal level, the government has to, you know, actually do it.

In the case of Mr. Matthias mid-year review, it’s already ‘law’. It’s in the contract, right now. We don’t do it and no one notices because… “Out of sight, out of mind.”

2021

At the beginning of 2021, Mr. Matthias announced he would not ask for a raise during 2021.

However, in December 2021 we voted to go up to Step E–another 5%. And again, by far the most enthusiastic speech in support came from Councilmember Buxton.

Here is coverage from the Waterland Blog.

2022

The City Manager provides an annual City Manager Performance Accomplishments document.

There is then a written performance review which all seven CMs fill out.

Now in the past, we all saw each other’s reviews before the meeting. That stopped this year. This year we had to read them during the review.

But to give you a sense of what they’re like, here’s the 2021 Written Performance Review.

What you’ve all been waiting for…

Mr. Matthias’ current salary is about $236,000 plus over $20k in various benefits. The proposed raise would add $13.5k and bring the base salary to basically $250k.

The blunt instrument…

For what it’s worth: I have had and continue to have many issues with Mr. Matthias performance, but that package was never one of them. If I thought the performance was as good as my colleagues, I would have no problem with that dollar amount.

But it’s not.

So I vote against these raises for the same reason many people of conscious vote against various taxes. Sometimes, it’s not about the money. Sometimes, voting no is the only way to say “Enough.”

It’s a blunt instrument. You’d much rather have a scalpel, but sometimes a hammer is all you’ve got.

Marina, Policy, Transparency, Weekly Updates

Weekly Update: 12/04/2022

This Week

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda)

Barring that lahar we’ve been expecting here for about 300 years, this should be our last meeting of the year. As has become the norm, almost everything is on the Consent Agenda. Highlights?

- City Manager 5% increase
- 223rd Street project
- Massey Creek Pocket Estuary
- Court Room Audio system

There will also be a Public Hearing on that 216th zoning moratorium so many people are puzzled by (including moi.)

Last Week

Tuesday: Port of Seattle (Agenda) The Commission gave final approval to their 2023 budget. Here is a letter I wrote to the Commissioners summarising my feelings on their first year together.

Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) (Video) Highlights included:

City Manager Report

The City Manager Report featured three items of note. All had elements of ‘surprise!’… Have I made it clear yet how much I am not a fan of ‘surprises’ in local government? 😀 The Mayor sets the final agenda for every meeting. So if you take away nothing else from what I write, it is this:

This is tactical. Everyone knows that ‘the element of surprise’ gives one an overwhelming advantage in many situations.

JAN 26 Marina STUDY SESSION Announced

The City Manager announced a Council Study Session on January 26th to continue the discussion about the Marina. A Study Session is a Council Meeting and not the Town Hall so many of you have requested. Surprise! 😀 Also, no information was provided as to the format. Recognise that there have been exactly three public meetings on the Marina in five years and they’ve all been terrible. There’s no other accurate way to describe them. I take grief from my colleagues about comments like this and my reply is this:

The City has never acknowledged any problems with public engagement on the Marina, quite the contrary, they have insisted that there has been ‘extensive’ public engagement. And when you’re that consistently stubborn, harsh treatment is fair treatment. I continue to urge residents to write the Council and demand we execute on the Virtual Marina Town Hall the Council voted for in September, 2021.

Bond Retirement

The Finance Director reported that the City had just paid off the last tranche of Marina GO Bonds from 2012, which is a good thing because it improves our credit rating slightly so that we can… get out there and grab us some more Marina debt! 😀 But seriously, I was not quite as “standing-o” as my colleagues for two reasons:

Bonds are (or should be) a routine part of the City’s business. You don’t have a party when you pay your mortgage. It’s time to move past celebrating when we do something normal.
Also, it took the City a decade to pay off that $2.5MM. Get it? Even two million is a heavy lift for us. Aaaannnnd… the docks will cost about $50MM.

In other words, it’s nice. Truly. But save the champagne.

Ferry Update

Our Ferry Consultant (who is also the publisher of the City Currents) gave the long-awaited Ferry Update. We were given a presentation which again declared the program a complete success.

To which I have the following short reply. Page #21.

That is one page from a report from the firm the City hired to do the actual program setup, delivered to the City Manager over a year ago. Over a year ago, it provided some (but not all) the answers the Council should have received before we voted to begin this entire process. (Let that sink in for a moment.)

It projects that a six month trial will lose between $1-1.5MM dollars. That is why we did not see it until after the trial. And after my colleagues voted for a second round in Spring 2022. More below.

Consent Agenda

The Consent Agenda included a contract renewal and pay increase for three more consultants:

- A City engineer who retired in 2013 and has been kept on as a private contractor for 10 years. I am not using his name because I have no issue with his work. I voted no because, I was a consultant. 😀 And I don’t like long term contractors unless I get to see the contractor and ask them about their projects every once in a while. For a decade this person has played a lead role on several very controversial/high profile jobs including:
  1. Sound Transit
  2. Des Moines Creek Business Park
  3. SR-509
  4. The transfer of WSDOT surplus property (the ‘forest’ along 216th) to the Port of Seattle.
- Peter Philips, the above ferry guy. I think you can assume that I would not favour raising his monthly fee from $3,000 to $5,000 a month.
- The Marina consultant guy. His resume includes the Harbor Steps in Seattle, which is very nice. But again, the Council has not bothered to discuss the cancellation of last year’s aborted RFQ or this year’s surprise hotel. We need to stop everything Marina-related until we have a better plan.

New Items For Consideration

I proposed to restore the Public Comment Form and put a clear public comment policy on the City web site. Voted down 5-2. The Clerk insists that one can find all correspondence from the public in every packet. I asked for a procedure and was told “It’s all there.” Great. Show me.

Executive Session

Regular readers will note that I get bitched at for ‘loose lips’ about ES. But once again it was my colleagues who ‘spilled the beans’ from the dais that it was the City Manager’s Review. But not me, nope. 😀

‘In the room’ was, as usual, a little ugly, and a whole lot of pointless. And I feel bad for the staff members who have to endure it. Councilmember Achziger proposed limiting the participants to just the seven CMs. I seconded it only to make a point: I have never done an employee review where the employee was in the room for the entire deal. Yes, the employee is present for ‘feedback’, but there is always (at least on the planet I inhabit) a section where management has a chance to discuss the performance of the employee alone. In my time on the Council I have never been at a table with my six colleagues without the City Manager.

A couple more details to express the pointlessness:

The City Manager’s contract provides for two reviews every year. We only ever do one. The mid-year one just never gets put on the Agenda. That’s the Mayor’s call and that’s #327 on my list of reforms.
The City Manager provides a public Accomplishments document. The Council provides their review notes, which are also public documents. But this year, we did not see each other’s comments until we got into the room. Just like that ferry report, we go in blind. That is also the Mayor’s choice and it is also by design. #328.

It predicts that a six month ferry program will lose between $997,000 and $1,450,000. But that small bit of information was not included in the information the Council had before voting on any point of the Ferry Pilot program. And for that reason alone you should not be happy.

Same thing happened with the Diedrich RPM Demand Study in 2019. We paid for it, but it took me doing a public records request in 2021 to see the results. The Council voted to approve the project without seeing those results. (We also did not see the 2015 King County and 2021 PSRC Studies–both of which see no future in ferry commuter service here.)

I cannot say for certain, but in this case, it looks as those the City did not want to have to explain why it wanted to move forward with such a dire forecast and simply avoided that problem by simply not mentioning that the report even existed.

And the City Manager made it clear that the report was available. He chose to provide the report after the meeting. And I’m glad that cat is finally out of the bag. Not providing data to the Council until after the meeting is a strategy.

As soon as the presentation ended, and even before taking questions from the Council, the City Manager asked the Council to move to create a second ferry ‘trial’ in the Spring, with no budget. And my colleagues seemed more than eager to act on that. They just want it.

Some specifics…

And we were also given a lot more information we had never received.

We were told that the program had come in at less than 50% of the original contract, woo hoo! But in my world that is not a good thing. If one’s cost estimate is that far wrong, explanations are warranted. We received none. (Seriously, if you contract with a company for a new roof at $20,000 and then they hand you a bill for $10,000 wouldn’t you have questions?)
We were also told (silly!) that the Ferry was never intended to be sustainable (ie. to cover its own costs.)
In fact, we were told that covering 40% of costs was better than expected performance. (Not to beat a dead horse, but we were never informed that 20% was considered ‘normal’.)
We were told that the overwhelming number of riders arrived at the dock by automobile.
We were told that the ridership was mostly seniors so there was no way to know how well it would do with commuters–which is another reason why we need that second trial! (Actually, there’s a very good way to know–just look at the previous for realz studies done by both King County Water Taxi 2015 and the PSRC in 2021. They both indicate that commuter demand will not be great–if it were, they would have considered adding Des Moines to their list of stops. Again: we already know that there is no great demand for commuters in DM.)

At Crazy Eddie’s, how do we keep prices so low?

Circling back to that final cost. How did the City get such a deal, a steal, the sale of the century? I asked. Got nothing. But here is a slide from the Presentation compared to the contract we approved in July:

Ta da!

	Original Contract July	Final Report 12/01/22
Vessel	174,000	74,840
Fuel	93,600	83,532
Moorage	14,300	35,030
Ops Management	47,840	?
Marketing	70,600	?
Mobilization	60,500	?
Project Report	9,200	?
Total Costs	470,040	220,402
Revenues	89,345	89,345
Profit (Loss)	(380,695)	(131,507)

Since the Council didn’t actually see, you know, the books, here’s what it looks like to me at the moment.

Somehow we got two months for the price of one. (Is that a one-off, was the estimate crazy-wrong or will we continue to get that kind of a ‘bargain’ going forward?
Annnnnnnnnnd… we simply did not include all those (very real) marketing/management charges on the presentation (note the little asterisk.)
Also, nowhere do we include any ferry consultant fees ($5,000/mo) and our various advertising and other ferry consultant fees (yes, we’ve had multiple consultants.)

But no matter how you present it, the thing is a big money loser. The only question is how much. And the fact that we have chronically felt the need to hide information, dissemble, and even fiddle the numbers to make it look better than it is, should be alarming. One thing you can take to the bank is this: it loses money. And the longer we run it, the more money it will lose.

It’s not a puppy!

If one reviews the mountain of PDFs the consultant provided, most of it involves how happy people are about having a ferry. They like riding it. They like seeing it come and go. I get it. But only one or two pages are concerned with the finances. And that is because that part of the story is simply not very much fun. Yeah, you can spin it as ‘better than expected’, but that’s like saying a D+ is not as bad as an F-. Neither are passing grades.

I have to admit that I’ve been as frustrated by residents who support the ferry as by my colleagues.

That over-eagerness feels to me a whole lot like when yer kids bring home that stray puppy. They want it. And so their strategy is to, by hook or by crook, keeping it around as long as possible, whether it makes sense or not, so that little Barkley becomes a part of the family.

Aside from the fact that I’m an extremely fun person, this has nothing to do with the fun in riding a ferry. Cruel truth: The money we’re spending on this ferry is money that we’re taking from core functions (public safety, parks, roads, programs for kids, seniors, etc.) Sorry, Brenda, but if we keep that St. Bernard, we can’t fund your college fund. Awwww, gee whiz, Daaaaaaad. 😀

The dream that makes it all OK…

The only way one might justify this spend would be if one could demonstrate that it will eventually bring in more revenue long term. But read carefully: neither the City or the highly paid consultant has provided any evidence to support that notion. It is all a dream.

The City claimed that ‘many’ businesses had received a noticeable uptick in business. But the Council only received one letter to that effect. And of the 111 Passenger Ferry Comments included with the report, none are from businesses.

However, I’ll leave you with one small stat…

Over seventy percent of the riders originated in Des Moines, headed to Seattle and took a return trip. Which means (duh) that less than thirty percent of the ridership will be coming to spend money here. And the vast majority of riders originating here are discount fares, who will take up parking we do not have and spend money at very nice places in Seattle.

Get it? The ferry can never be a revenue driver for Des Moines. It is impossible. (However, it can compete for scarce parking resources.)

Still insane, man…

I wrote back in June, This is insane. The City Manager asked me to reconsider that assessment in light of the final report and my reply is: Still insane, man.

Frankly, we don’t seem to care–on multiple levels. We don’t seem to care whether a program like this was evaluated in a transparent fashion, we don’t care whether it works or not, and we don’t seem to care what the long term consequences will likely be. It really does strike me like that puppy your kids want you to keep. They just want it.

Marina, Policy, Transparency

It’s not a puppy

3 Comments

This is Page 21 from Ferry Demonstration Project Scoping and Reconnaissance Report dated 08/31/2021. To my knowledge this has not been brought to the Council or any Committee. It does not appear on the City web site until Friday, December 2, 2022.It predicts that a six month ferry program will lose between $997,000 and $1,450,000. But that small bit of information was not included in the information the Council had before voting on any point of the Ferry Pilot program. And for that reason alone you should not be happy.

Some specifics…

And we were also given a lot more information we had never received.

We were told that the program had come in at less than 50% of the original contract, woo hoo! But in my world that is not a good thing. If one’s cost estimate is that far wrong, explanations are warranted. We received none. (Seriously, if you contract with a company for a new roof at $20,000 and then they hand you a bill for $10,000 wouldn’t you have questions?)
We were also told (silly!) that the Ferry was never intended to be sustainable (ie. to cover its own costs.)
In fact, we were told that covering 40% of costs was better than expected performance. (Not to beat a dead horse, but we were never informed that 20% was considered ‘normal’.)
We were told that the overwhelming number of riders arrived at the dock by automobile.
We were told that the ridership was mostly seniors so there was no way to know how well it would do with commuters–which is another reason why we need that second trial! (Actually, there’s a very good way to know–just look at the previous for realz studies done by both King County Water Taxi 2015 and the PSRC in 2021. They both indicate that commuter demand will not be great–if it were, they would have considered adding Des Moines to their list of stops. Again: we already know that there is no great demand for commuters in DM.)

At Crazy Eddie’s, how do we keep prices so low?

Ta da!

	Original Contract July	Final Report 12/01/22
Vessel	174,000	74,840
Fuel	93,600	83,532
Moorage	14,300	35,030
Ops Management	47,840	?
Marketing	70,600	?
Mobilization	60,500	?
Project Report	9,200	?
Total Costs	470,040	220,402
Revenues	89,345	89,345
Profit (Loss)	(380,695)	(131,507)

Since the Council didn’t actually see, you know, the books, here’s what it looks like to me at the moment.

Somehow we got two months for the price of one. (Is that a one-off, was the estimate crazy-wrong or will we continue to get that kind of a ‘bargain’ going forward?
Annnnnnnnnnd… we simply did not include all those (very real) marketing/management charges on the presentation (note the little asterisk.)
Also, nowhere do we include any ferry consultant fees ($5,000/mo) and our various advertising and other ferry consultant fees (yes, we’ve had multiple consultants.)

It’s not a puppy!

I have to admit that I’ve been as frustrated by residents who support the ferry as by my colleagues.

The dream that makes it all OK…

However, I’ll leave you with one small stat…

Get it? The ferry can never be a revenue driver for Des Moines. It is impossible. (However, it can compete for scarce parking resources.)

Still insane, man…

I wrote back in June, This is insane. The City Manager asked me to reconsider that assessment in light of the final report and my reply is: Still insane, man.

Transparency

Public Comment Proposal

There is currently no vehicle for electronic public comment. Some may want to argue that point (and why wouldn’t we, in an era when people can’t seem to agree on much of anything.) But my definition of “public comment” is…

“Communications meant to address the City Council as a body and where both the person or organisation making the comment, and the contents of that comment, are placed into the official meeting record such that they may be viewed in perpetuity as any other business of that meeting.”

I believe that is what the public expects. They want to know not only that their message has been received, but, just as importantly, they also want a way for the rest of the City to hear their voice, whether or not they can be present for our meetings.

Currently, that is simply not the case. When you send an email or a letter to the Council, it is definitely seen by the Council and City Clerk, and it is considered ‘public information’. But one would have to do a Public Records Request in order to access that information, to even be aware of those communications.

Therefore, if you are not ‘on camera’, no one but yourself and about ten people at the City (seven CMs, clerks) are aware of what you wrote.

It is arguable that emails may not fully pass muster as ‘public comment’. Emails offer no bona fides as to the speaker’s identity or their location. And social media? Don’t get me started. However when one signs up to speak at the podium, we see you, and you asked to provide one’s name and address.

During the pandemic, the City performed an update to the web site, which included a Public Comment Form that addresses most of those concerns. One was asked for that same name/address information.

Apparently, the form was disabled when the City’s Emergency Proclamation ended, considered no longer necessary, once in-person meetings resumed.

I disagree. For many years the City would include letters from the public in each packet. I know this because I can see them in previous packets. So this feels like an unnecessary step backward in terms of transparency and community engagement.

Proposal

At our December 1 Meeting I will propose restoring and formalising that Public Comment Form system based on my understanding of the current software.

I understand that the staff has tried several approaches since the start of the pandemic to place those comments into the meeting packets and they have all been, to one extent or another, time consuming.

But the current web site has features to help automate the process, plus we can hire a developer to further improve the work flow.

Regardless, it is my belief that there must be a vehicle for people who cannot attend our meetings in person to have their comments placed into the public record. The status quo seems to be “Trust us, everyone saw your email, but now that the pandemic is over and we’re not required to do that stuff, we’re onto more important things.” That is not what the public expects and it is not a good look.

If this is a question of resources, let’s quantify the requirements and then allocate them as needed. But heading into 2023, electronic public comment is not optional. We should develop a standardised system to do this which is convenient for staff and acknowledge that any absence was a mistake.

—JC

Introduction

April 4 Study Session

April 6, 2013 Council Retreat

Radical or Traditional

June 6, 2013 City Council Meeting

August 3, 2013 Budget Retreat

Aftermath

Recovery

It’s like déjà vu all over again…

No one is consistent

The funny thing is…

You have to want it…

The Big Picture

Parcel A

Steps…

I hope it’s not really ‘steps’…

Swales up 223rd

Why?

Now…

Solutions…

This Week

Last Week

2022 City Manager Performance Review: Comments/Scoring

The Review Process

Cherry Picking…

The Future

The Review Process

Cherry Picking…

The Future

This Week

Last Week

December 8 Meeting Highlights

Public Comment

City Manager’s Report

Accolades from Chief Thomas

Farmers Market Update

Consent Agenda

City Manager 5% increase

Court Room Audio system

Public Hearing (Land Use Moratorium)

New Items For Consideration

Here is how local government is supposed to work

Rule #17

It’s a zero sum game…

Oversight…

Politics…

But here’s the real problem…

Here is how local government is supposed to work

Rule #17

It’s a zero sum game…

Oversight…

Politics…

But here’s the real problem…

Some history…

2014

2016

2017

2020

2021

2022

What you’ve all been waiting for…

The blunt instrument…

This Week

Last Week

City Manager Report

JAN 26 Marina STUDY SESSION Announced

Bond Retirement

Ferry Update

Consent Agenda

New Items For Consideration

Executive Session

Some specifics…

At Crazy Eddie’s, how do we keep prices so low?

Ta da!

It’s not a puppy!

The dream that makes it all OK…

Still insane, man…

Some specifics…

At Crazy Eddie’s, how do we keep prices so low?

Ta da!