Some bits of business…
Future Agendas is the closest thing the City currently has to a calendar of upcoming City Council topics. It’s not dynamic, ie. you have to click it every time you want to see a new version. And it’s not always accurate. But until we develop a genuine calendar, this can be very useful if there is a particular issue you don’t want to miss.
Des Moines Creek West
In case you missed it, the Hearing Examiner ruled against the group of Des Moines residents objecting to the development plans to extend the business park west. Des Moines – Russo MDNS Appeal (final 11.21.24)
I have a simple message: Public. Planning. Commission. 2025.
I got into this racket five years ago to help prevent this kind of deal. Almost every major local squabble is about land use. Des Moines Creek Business Park, Masonic Home, Woodmont Recovery Clinic, Marina Hotel, Marina Steps, Des Moines Creek West… and next 223rd Green Streets (see below). By only caring when there is a specific problem for you it makes every problem for everyone keep happening.
The developer did nothing wrong. The SEPA official did nothing wrong. And neither did the Port of Seattle. It was your City Council, which set the rules, abolished the Planning Commission in 2012, and repeatedly, approved the agreements. You’ll see below that we keep screwing up–including this last meeting!
Every other city has a planning commission of some kind. They are all different because every city can tailor their system to meet the needs of their community. The only thing they all share is a place you can go every month to stay informed and participate in the the city’s strategic planning. Anyone who argues against a PPC is really saying, “I like as system where the City can do what it wants with the absolute minim of public engagement so it can continue to blindside residents and develop the City in an ad hoc fashion. And the fact that I have to educate people on what that is, is the reason we so desperately need it. We started losing our way as to various ‘norms’ like this two decades ago and you don’t realise what outliers we are.
This does not have to be the end of the story. There is still a lot of room for improvement to that plan. And there is definitely room to improve every other planning decision in this city (see 223 Green Streets below!) But not unless you help re-instate the Public Planning Commission. Immediately.
City Currents
In what may well be the last print version of City Currents, I’m providing a link to the Winter PDF version (which is easier for visually disabled people such as moi), and also to my catalogue of all previous City Currents going back to 1990. Said it before, say it again, you can learn a lot about Des Moines government from reading through these.
City Currents Magazines 1990-2024
City Manager Stuff
Here is the third Weekly Report from City Manager Katherine Caffrey.
City Manager’s Report November 22, 2024
This is not a replica, as she has committed to providing separate reports. In addition to continuing the same list of very useful events Tim George did, she has substituted his penchant for sports, with… Recipes!
Her first recipe is for Chicken Enchiladas with pumpkin. In my family, many Christmases have featured Tamales and various squash concoctions. So, this major management pivot gets at least four snaps up. With extra mole, please. 🙂
Also, the City is now placing a direct link to the City Youtube channel on the home page. Democracy: crushing it since 1776! 😀
I hope it encourages a lot more people to watch meetings. However, this is not the way I’d hoped to effect this shift. Our Comcast Channel 21 has been misbehaving for quite some time. Considering it’s in our franchise agreement, I’d prefer it get fixed, however, a running joke I had with the City was referring to Channel 21 as ‘The Cocktail Music Channel which just happens to play City Council meetings a few times a month’.
One of the joys of my tenure was seeing the former IT manager appreciate the humour.
We’ve had several decades to try to provide our own content. And if we haven’t gotten their yet, it’s never gonna happen. I dearly want us to provide more information to residents. But we need to do it via something connected to the interwebs.
City Manager Meet n’ Greet
In the meantime, Ms. Caffrey will also be appearing live, here:
o Monday, 11/25, 9-10:30am, North Hill Espresso
This Week
Holidays. Black Friday spending. Americans trying to explain American Football to me. You know the drill. Not much else, really.
So, if you have a burning issue (and by that I don’t mean the flaming Turkey Fryer you forgot about in the garage) call me. (206) 878-0578.
Last Week
Wednesday 2:30: Highline Forum (at City of SeaTac City Hall) There was a SAMP update. I attended because if you learn nothing else about the Port of Seattle, here’s something: every presentation they give is slightly different. (Agenda) 😀
This was fascinating in that both the City of SeaTac and the City of Burien have put childcare in their economic development. Specifically, they are using ARPA money to help start childcare businesses in their cities and get childcare professionals trained and certified. This is a wonderful idea.
Wednesday: Regional Transit Committee. We’ll finalise 2025 budget recommendations on Rapid Ride. As I keep ranting about, this is great, except for every person in Des Moines who has to schlep over a mile just to get to a Rapid Ride stop!
Wednesday: FAA Puget Sound Webinar. The fifteen minutes is must-see for everyone concerned about The SAMP.
FAA Puget Sound Airspace Webinar – Sea-Tac Airport Noise And Pollution
Thursday: Transportation Committee – 21 Nov 2024 – Agenda – Pdf
Highlight: 223rd Green Street Study Report This is likely the most important meeting of the year you don’t know about. It is also a must read for everyone. I mean EVERYONE. But especially people interested in the Marina Steps. The City is recommending that we go ahead with what is essentially the next phase of ‘Marina Redevelopment’ based on seventy nine (79) survey responses. This is the connector from the down town to the Marina. And yet it’s not even in the last Marina Master Plan! Check out the cost ($20,000,000) and check out the date on the report (April 2024). This is ridiculous.
Thursday: Environment Committee – 21 Nov 2024 – Agenda – Pdf
Highlight: Source Control Update. ‘Source Control’ means monitoring businesses and other potential sources of pollution. We got a report on how that’s going and the good news is that the City is taking the program in-house rather than paying an outside consultant.
November 21, 2024 City Council Meeting Recap
Thursday: Regular Meeting – 21 Nov 2024 – Agenda – Updated
City Manager Report
This was Katherine Caffrey’s first ‘real’ meeting at the dais. It began with her ceremonial swearing in. No pressure. 😀
Executive Session
We immediately disappeared into a 30 minute ES. The RCW reason code is: “Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. Can’t tell ya. I can tell ya two things about it, one specific and one more general
It was a little weird having Ms. Caffrey call for this at her first meeting. However, I left with being impressed.
At almost every one of these there is at least some time wasted discussing “Is this gonna appear on JC’s blog?” Which, if you know anything about Des Moines, is the joke of the century. However, here’s the deal: Most ESs, despite the ‘veil of confidentiality’ have an obvious purpose. The RCW governing Executive Sessions requires us to declare one of 13 or so ‘reasons’. Eg. one code is for the City Manager’s performance review. Another refers to land use decisions. That’s the only thing I ever (cough) ‘reveal’. If anyone has a problem with simply explaining the RCW? The line forms at the rear. 😀
Consent Agenda
- SB 5290 Local Project Review Requirements
- Stormfest – Interlocal Agreement
- Marine View Drive Pond Retrofit
- Marina EV Charging Station 10 year agreement. This was an interesting thing that was added at the last minute and should not have been on consent. Since this was Ms. Caffrey’s first meeting, I was nice and did not object to Lady Throckmorton.
- Bird Deterrent Ball Purchase
I pulled this item to tell a little story here on yet another issue I’ve had with the Des Moines Creek Business Park. In the original 2012 agreement, the one that blindsided residents this year, the City was supposed to take over Tract A. Woo hoo! Land! Well, not really.
See, here’s the thing. When you walk along 216th, past the weird sculpture, there are these (cough) ‘wetlands’.
Actually, they’re nothing of the kind. They’re a series of man made retention (or is it ‘detention’ 😀 ) ponds. They’re only job is processing storm water. You can think of them as ‘biological machines’, something that might have been done with plumbing 100 years ago.
The problem is this: The land was bought with FAA dollars as ‘noise land’ And when the FAA does so, they have various rules that apply in perpetuity to every subsequent landowner. One says that whoever owns the land has to take certain steps to keep the birds away so that they don’t fowl the airspace. (Sorry, couldn’t help it. 😀 ) And since birds don’t know that these are biological machines and do occasionally flock around these detention ponds, they made us spend $124,000 to do provide ‘bird deterrent balls’. Unfortunately, we’ve already tried several things (eg. nets) to keep these bird brains away. Hopefully spending $124,000 will finally do the trick. Because if it doesn’t? Guess what, we’ll have to spend more money trying something else until it does.
So, this is an $124,000 unfunded mandate from the FAA. Why are we having to pony up one hundred and twenty four freakin’ thousand dollars to keep ducks from being sucked into a 737? Because we wanted (cough) ‘ownership’ of the property.
See that’s the really funny part. Notice that the Port (and the Business Park) owns the rest of the property. The stuff that makes money. We, on the other hand, got the ‘wetland’, which costs money, and which has absolutely zero public benefit. And since it’s designed to keep birds out, it doesn’t even have wildlife benefit!
The Waterland Blog’s coverage of the meeting has the line:
“Councilmember JC Harris pulled an item from the consent agenda which none of the councilmembers seemed to be familiar with.”
Not to be that guy, but I wouldn’t have pulled the item unless I was paying attention to airport issues. This. Is. The SAMP. The entire Des Moiens Creek Business Park is the SAMP. One of a hundred things that happen on and off the runways that benefit the Port of Seattle to the detriment of the City of Des Moines.
Public Hearing 2025 Property Tax Levy
In addition to the usual 1% increase, we will tack on the ‘banked’ capacity we gave homeowners during the pandemic. It doesn’t bug me now for the same reason it did not strike me as ‘generous’ back then. It’s actually just a few dollars for each homeowner. And knowing how strapped we perpetually are, I knew we’d take it back eventually. In other words, there is no free lunch; just a reprieve. 🙂
New/Unfinished Business
2024 Budget Amendments. I had my share of concerns, but the one thing I heard from the Finance Director was REET (real estate excise tax), basically the sales tax we get on property sales. It is a useful proxy for the housing market. Apparently we had an uptick last year whilst other cities went down. That begs the question ‘why?’
Water District 54 Franchise Amendment. Full disclosure: I am one of WD54’s 626-ish happy customers. The original City proposal was a 6% utility tax to end the franchise agreement and bring them in line with other utilities. WD54 objected that doing so would make the total fee users pay higher than residents in other areas. So the new proposal is to continue the franchise agreement and add 6% to the franchise payment. The item passed to a second reading 6-1.
Former WD54 commissioner, and present Councilmember Grace-Matsui against. She described this as a ‘tariff’ by which I think she meant that the cost will get passed onto customers. Of course it will. The original proposal was to avoid that and simply tax customers directly. I actually find that a cleaner approach, because then their customers know who to blame. 😀
Look, I have never been a big fan of utility taxes because they can be regressive for low income homeowners. However, even the most ‘progressive’ cities have come to depend on them in order to counterbalance the 21% property tax cap–a feature voters really like.
So, until everyone is willing to have a rational discussion about how irrational our entire tax system is (3 minutes before hell freezes over by my watch), and so long as all special purpose districts are treated equally, I have no objection to an increase which, for most homeowners (again, I’m one), will add up to a couple of dollars a month.
Square Footage Tax. Will bring in lots of money from the Business Park we could have gotten years ago. But better late than ever. The Council seemed to quibble over the rate (.13/sq ft.) which was chosen a bit arbitrarily, and how to make sure it is adjusted over time. The proposal calls for keying increases to the consumer price index. I’m not a fan, because that often does not correlate well with business or real estate. In fact, I’m not a huge fan of any sort of ‘automation’ like that for similar reasons. That may be a minor quibble. The Council does seem interested in making various taxes ‘automatic’ rather than having to make choices, or perhaps letting things slide. Or (God forbid) letting voters decide. 😀 However, now that we have a Finance Committee I think we’ll stay on top of it simply via annual reviews. But apparently others disagree.
The discussion mentioned the costs of providing important services in the Business Park, like public safety (and bird deterrents! 😀 ). It is not only a fair point, it also gives me another chance to rant about the Business Park. 😀 The Port of Seattle is the owner of most of the property. They are responsible for paying the property taxes which generally power public safety. And… they are tax exempt. So, while this warehouse tax is a very positive step forward, it is also only half the solution. The other half, of course, is to get the Port to pony up their fair share for a very profitable business, one which supports airport operations. (See: everything is ‘the SAMP’.) It’s one thing to give a truly non-profit agency a break on property taxes. It’s quite another to give an agency with a budget forty times our size a free pass on millions of dollars every year. Along with this warehouse tax and fair compensation on the Business Park, we’ll be a lot further down the road towards fiscal sustainability.Next Contest!
This one should be easy, peasy. And since we’re entering the holiday season, the prize will be extra special. Anyone who watched our last meeting and read my last Weekly Update will get this. Here’s all ya gotta do…
- Look at the 11/17 Weekly Update (paying particular attention to the Council Meeting Highlights.)
- Watch this week’s meeting
- Find one error of fact/mistake/difference between them. There are at least three biggees.
In fact, the gaffes in the last Weekly Update are not buried. If you watch the meeting, or even look at the agenda, at least one should hit you in the face like a Bird Deterrent Ball! 😀 But unlike like Lady Throckmorton I don’t want to shame anyone. I want to reward you for paying attention!
Hope you win!
1The name doesn’t matter. She just had to sound posh. 🙂
2I actually oppose our City’s repeated attempts to lobby the State to raise that cap. That really would be taxation without representation. The voters have spoken over and over that they do not want that cap raised and for better or worse we should learn to respect that.
Please double check ownership of Track B (2437). According to my research is not owned by the city or the Port of Seattle, but by Panattoni….have you dug into that? Given that is where one of the detention/retention ponds are located, what are the implications for the city?
My, we’re getting into the weeds. Literally. Tract B, Tract X, and Tract Y (orange in the piccie) are owned by the Business Park, not the Port of Seattle. They are considered public utility space and tax exempt. They are subject to the same flight restrictions as Tract A. Thanks for writing.
“Look, I have never been a big fan of utility taxes because they can be regressive for low income homeowners. However, even the most ‘progressive’ cities have come to depend on them in order to counterbalance the 21% property tax cap–a feature voters really like.”
I really wish I could levy a (tax) increase on my retirement and social security every time I OVERSPEND …every damn politician/council person looks at taxes as unlimited, and taxpayers get NO increase in value for service by the taxing entity…so it is essentially legally sanctioned THEFT.