Most Recent Article [more articles below]
Previous Articles
Weekly Update 08/04/2024
3 Comments on Weekly Update 08/04/2024What does public safety have to do with batteries?
Leave a comment on What does public safety have to do with batteries?Normally, I wait until Sunday to post a Weekly Update, but I wanted to share this article as a ‘taster’ of what you can find in every week. Whether you agree with my points of view or not, I think you’ll find they contain lots of useful information.
At our last city council meeting, there was a good update on police from the acting police chief. We learned that police staff is currently at about the same level as 2019. And despite upcoming financial challenges, this is where (until just this year) the police department said it wanted to be. And I don’t quite know what to think because response times are as good as they’ve ever been–literally improving every year. For the most serious calls, the response time is a little over three minutes. Outstanding.
We have yet to choose our next city manager. Our new police chief does not take office until after this election. And we have contract negotiations with the police guild at the end of the year. So, there are a lot of decisions to be made, and given that outstanding response time I believe we can wait at least until next year to make decisions about police funding–especially a permanent property tax increase.
OK, but what does an electric ferry have to do with public safety?
Many things changed my position on the Tax Levy vote. Those excellent response times were one. The number of questionable financial policies the City continues to engage in was another.
Despite already wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a failed passenger ferry pilot, we are still going all in on an electric passenger ferry and a floating battery dock to charge it. This year we will spend at least $100,000 on lobbying for future technology that literally does not exist. That’s no exaggeration. If we are successful, we may well end up being the first in the nation. Twice.
The boat we have in mind is still on the drawing board. The nearest design the consultant has mentioned is being funded by the British government in Belfast. A prototype may be ready for testing at end of year.
The charging platform is essentially a floating battery, and also so new that the only image our consultant could provide is this drawing. Apparently, San Francisco plans to build one, but their budget is over fifty times ours.
You can think of this platform as a 2ton and a half of lithium-ion batteries. Floating in the sun. In salt water. Not to sound alarmist, but please Google ‘thermal runaway’ and decide for yourself if we should be first on this one.
Given previous safety challenges with Li-Ion batteries, the rapidly changing nature of battery tech, and the fact that the new Marina Steps design has not discussed access by fire professionals in any serious way, I believe we should let experts in other jurisdictions gain experience before we jump aboard.
More broadly? In my opinion, a city our size has no business being ‘first’ on any radically new technology. Our job should be to spend your money conservatively whenever possible, on core services like roads, parks, and yes public safety. When marine-EV is fully baked? The Des Moines Marina will still be here, and we will all benefit from a mature, safe, and lower priced system.
More than that, the $100k we’re spending just on ‘ferry’ this year alone, is a full-time salary we won’t be able to fund somewhere else. If you want a sustainable government and better services (including public safety), encourage your government to spend its precious resources: time, energy and money, on the core services that will make a difference in your life today.
However you vote on August 6th? Your vote will send a message. I voted no because the message I wanted to send was, “I want public safety. Please make better spending choices to get us there.”
1The proposed energy output of this thing is 165kwh. With current technology, battery weight is essentially a linear function with roughly 18lbs/kwh. That ratio will improve, but no one can say when because there are so many competing chemistries.
Police response times are improving!
Leave a comment on Police response times are improving!
At our August 2 City Council meeting, we received a police department update which showed that response times are actually improving! And yet, we're warned that the officer/resident ratio is low. But that begs an important question......
Categories History
Tribal Canoe Journey at Saltwater State Park
Format GalleryLeave a comment on Tribal Canoe Journey at Saltwater State Park
So… the guy at the top holds the tribal flag of the Muckleshoots. There is a group that waits in the water and from time to time they chant. On the shore, there are drummers. When one of the boats approaches, the people in the water greet them and everyone hoists the boat onto the...
Weekly Update: 07/28/2024
Leave a comment on Weekly Update: 07/28/2024
This Week: FinComm on Business License Fees increases. Port Package Update pow wow. Study Session: Legislative Agenda! Last Week: Big meetings on Marina Steps. It's all or nothing! $1M for a Passenger Ferry Battery? DMCBP SEPA Comments due....
Des Moines Creek West (Barnes Creek Trail)
Format GalleryLeave a comment on Des Moines Creek West (Barnes Creek Trail)
Categories Taxes
Did we, or did we not, have a dedicated fund for tax levy money in 2006?
Leave a comment on Did we, or did we not, have a dedicated fund for tax levy money in 2006?At the 25 July 2024 City Council meeting, the City put up a slide contradicting some of my concerns over the 2006 Lid Lift.
I told staff months ago that when the previous (2006) levy lid lift passed that it had led to more police in the first year, but that police staffing had dropped every year thereafter. That was all true.
I also said that the City had created a dedicated account to hold the lid lift money. And that the City had simply moved money around in order to pay general expenses. That was also true.
However, at Thursday’s meeting, the City put up this slide:
The claim that there was no designated fund for levy proceeds was untrue.
As this page from the 2009 budget makes clear (see red arrows), the City created just such an account after the 2006 levy passed. “Property tax revenues generated by the levy lid lift are segregated in a Special Revenue Fund called the Police Restoration Fund (Fund 112)”
Weekly Update: 07/21/2024
1 Comment on Weekly Update: 07/21/2024
Categories Taxes
About that Tax Levy Lid Lift Pamphlet
Leave a comment on About that Tax Levy Lid Lift PamphletNormally, I do not bother people more than once a week. However, after hearing from a bajillion residents, I have two significant concerns about the accuracy of the tax levy lid lift pamphlet you’ve all received from the City which I’d like to call to your attention.
First Concern: the graphic
The bar chart indicates various levels of ‘crime’ by year. I honestly have no idea what those numbers represent.
Also, the chart has a column for ‘crime’ in 2025. Predicting the future is a pretty neat trick.
Second Concern: the example
The ballot initiative says that you are voting on Ordinance No. 1795. I urge you to read that CAREFULLY before you vote because that is what you are voting on; NOT the pamphlet.
Ordinance 1795 is basically a tax increase that is intended for public safety expenses of some kind. THAT is what you are voting on, no more, no less.
Here is my problem
The second and third columns of the pamphlet provide a very detailed example of how those funds -could- be used. But it does not point out that IT IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE.
Two thirds of the flyer is devoted to one possible example of how the funds -COULD- be used. Not how it -must- be used.
The fact of the matter is that the money -could- be used in 100 other ways–and the pamphlet should say this.
Read the pamphlet carefully. Nowhere does it say something like, “This is only one possible example”.
Because there is nothing legally obligating the City to use the new funds for the specific examples in the flyer.
If this passes, the Council -could- do exactly what is in the pamphlet. Or, it could do something else. And it could do something else again in 2025, 2026, 2027. The money could be used in many different ways every year. It just depends on what the City Council approves in any given year.
The Whereases
An Ordinance is always in two pieces: the Whereases and the actual ‘law’. The Whereases are the intent. But they are not the ‘law’ That is in the second piece. The Ordinance does not require the City to maintain or increase staffing levels or equipment levels. That is the goal stated in the Whereases. But there is -nothing- binding the City to do that if it decides to make other choices in any given year. It’s -not- a contract.
Note that the Sections of the ordinance (the actual ‘law’) are devoted almost exclusively to the tax.
Some other possibilities
Our current annual public safety budget is prox. $14M. Based on the feedback I’ve received thus far on the pamphlet, I believe the public assumes that this levy would increase that budget to about $16M.
That’s the goal; Plug a $1M hole in the current P/S budget, and then tack on another $2M for new stuff (officers, vehicles.) Schweet.
- However, there is nothing preventing the City Council from, instead, voting for only that same $14M P/S budget. We could use that $3M in new money for public safety, but then only allocate $11M from the general account. And that could free up $1M for other purposes having nothing to do with public safety.
- Or, we could allocate $16M. But when we negotiate a new contract with the Police Guild this fall we might find that salaries have increased and we have fewer options to achieve those -goals-.
Neither of those scenarios would achieve the specific goals of the pamphlet. But both would be completely within the scope of the Ordinance.
Again, again, we’re voting on a tax increase. Not specific staffing or vehicle purchase proposal. There is nothing obligating the City to follow the example in the pamphlet.
No ordinance can bind a future council
No ordinance can bind a future council. That’s a fancy way of saying that the City Council can create a policy one year and then vote to go in a different policy direction the next–regardless of the Whereases in Ordinance 1795.
Permanent
But the tax part? That is permanent, unless or until the City Council would create another ballot initiative to give voters a chance to remove it.
Summary
Sorry for repeating myself so many times. I do not want to sound like there is any bad intent. Future City Councils could follow the example in the pamphlet each year going forward; and forever. (I wrote some of that copy and I believe they are great goals. 🙂 )
But that is not what the legal language says. And I’ve gotten push back from residents who simply refuse to believe this. They insist that they are voting on the specific example in the pamphlet. And I don’t know what to do with that. It’s simply not true.
Summary
Vote however ya like. Just understand exactly what you are voting for. Ordinance No. 1795. Please read it (it’s not very long) and decide based on that.
Not the example in the pamphlet.