Most Recent Article [more articles below]

Previous Articles

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....

... [Continue Reading] ...

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.

Source: City of Des Moines

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:

Source: City of Des Moines 25 July 2024 Meeting

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)”

Source: City of Des Moines 2009 Budget

 

About that Tax Levy Lid Lift Pamphlet

Leave a comment on About that Tax Levy Lid Lift Pamphlet

Normally, 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.

Downtown traffic congestion

1 Comment on Downtown traffic congestion

by Richard Kennedy
President Des Moines Historical Society

As someone who lived in Des Moines from 1955 through 1999, I thought I might give a brief history of downtown traffic congestion.

Before the Big Catch Plaza, there was a road parallel to the north side of Albertson’s (now Dollar Tree). As such there were two traffic signals very close to each other (see red dots on photograph below) on Marine View Drive South. These two signals, in conjunction with the signal at 1st Avenue South and Des Moines Way (now Des Moines Memorial Drive) often backed up southbound traffic on 1st Avenue South to South 208th Street. It also adversely impacted southbound traffic on Des Moines Way.

One-way Couplet

The City’s attempt to solve downtown traffic congestion involved the use of a one-way couplet. The following headlines are from The Des Moines News:

  • Jan. 17, 1973 — City, state schedule meet on one-way street plan
  • Jan. 24, 1973 — Time to decide on one-way streets
  • Feb. 7, 1973 — One-way street opposition mounted
  • Feb. 7, 1973 — Alternatives:
    • North End Alternative (Courtesy: Des Moines Historical Society)
    • South End Alternative (Courtesy: Des Moines Historical Society)
  • Feb. 14, 1973 — Merchants uniting to fight proposed one-way street plan
  • Feb. 21, 1973 — City Council o.k.’s, one-way street trial [4 month period]

One-Way Street Four Month Trial

(Courtesy: Des Moines Historical Society)
  • May 9, 1973 — One way system to open
  • May 30, 1973 — One way couplet trial results in four accidents, many complaints
  • June 13, 1973 — Merchants demand immediate halt to trial one way street couplet
  • June 27, 1973 — Merchants to push one-way street fight
  • July 4, 1973 — Businessman against one-way couplet give counsel petitions signed by 4000
  • July 11, 1973 — Shoppers, businessman favor two way traffic
  • Aug. 15, 1973 — State proposes modified street plan
  • Aug. 29, 1973 — One-way streets, water problems keep Des Moines councilman busy
  • Sep. 5, 1973 — NEWS conducting opinion poll on one-way street plan
  • Sep. 12, 1973 — Readers oppose one-way streets
  • Oct. 3, 1973 — City may return to two way streets
  • Oct. 17, 1973 — Two way streets: A question of when?
  • Nov. 7, 1973 — City Council to ponder one-way street issue
  • Nov. 14, 1973 —  City asks for immediate return of two way streets
  • Dec. 19, 1973 — Return to two-way streets awaits marking of stripes

Aftermath

After the failure of the one-way couplet idea, the city turned its attention to the two traffic signals at South 216th and 218th Streets. Big Catch Plaza was built moving South 218th Street to the intersection of Marine View Drive South and South 216th Street. This eliminated one traffic signal. See the diagram below where the red dot shows the remaining traffic signal.

This did provide a good deal of traffic relief for a number of years. Recently, southbound traffic is again starting to back up significantly.