Public Service Announcements
This Week
Tuesday: 9AM. Port Of Seattle, State Of The Port This is a pre-recorded presentation. It’s a political nerd thing, but worth watching not so much because the Port has that much direct connection with Des Moines, but because it tells us, essentially where they are at with regard to climate change.
Tuesday: Police Advisory Committee
Tuesday: 5:30PM Behavioural Health Forum. This is a meeting for electeds to, at least in part, discuss how mental health professionals will work in a law enforcement context–something I strongly favour. However, I think it’s fair to say that many people (OK, moi) don’t yet understand how that works in day to day practice. In other words, most of us fall back on ‘guns and badges’ as ‘the solution’ because we understand it. My hope is that as we develop clear benefit statements, more people will get on board.
Wednesday: Salmon Count at McSorley Creek. This may be the last count of the year. After some initially very optimistic results, things have dropped off (sigh). One duuuh moment I had that directly relates to our Environment Committee. The stream flow rate has been crazy high this year. Silly me, I thought that was a ‘good’ sign as a fisherman. But the flow rates now are going beyond normal due to climate change, more development–basically more storm water run-off. And beyond a certain point that extra flow erodes the stream and ruins the redds (where the eggs are laid.) So, we gotta think of ways to process the storm water more gently.
Wednesday: Sea-Tac Airport Roundtable (StART)
Thursday: City Council Meeting (Agenda) It will look boring to you, but there are two notable items:
Downtown Alley
There is a Consent Agenda item re. the Downtown Alley project. What that means is that we are repaving the alley behind Marine View Drive from 223rd to 227th. This vote will be to authorise (what seems to me) a last-minute budget increase. *The original project was costed at about $330k. If we vote for the thing it will now be at $704k. I have been on the Transportation Commitee for two years now and I have asked a question: Why are we doing this? And I always get very vague answers like: “it is a key part of our Marina…” I honestly do not see it.
Now on most CIP projects there will be some rendering depicting the final work. Here’s what was in the original CIP under that heading:
I sure hope for more information. For *$704,000 I want to understand some real benefits. Because remember: when it came to undergrounding wires on 24th Avenue, we chose to override the requirement–even though it’s the pathway for our school children.
City Manager Performance Review
There will also be an Executive Session (which is private) where we do the Annual Performance Review of the City Manager. This is a big deal because aside from all the lofty ‘legislation and oversight’ functions, the two big pillar jobs of a councilmember are: pass a budget and manage the City Manager. The final reviews are a public record and I will provide them when we’re done. In case you’re wondering, here is the City Manager’s current contract: January 23, 2020 City Council Packet. The pay rate currently indicates †M49D, which is $224k plus various benefits. Last year the City Manager chose not to accept a 1% COLA. I do not see anything in the packet about that. But our Mayor does like to make last minute changes to the Agenda.
A few things re. that last Executive Session.
- Totally private.
- And, in Des Moines? The City Manager participates. It’s the only performance review of my entire life where the review-ee is present and a full participant during the entire thing. There is no moment where it’s just the seven of us.
- Also, for those of you who think our public meetings are a ‘three ring circus’? OK, now think of every stunt you’ve witnessed on the dais and take it to a place where everyone is sworn to secrecy and use your imagination. I believe that if you were able to see it, even if you were the staunchest supporter of the majority, you would have to give everything a re-think.
One other thing: The City Manager’s contract actually requires two performance reviews. I do not recall that second one in either of my years on the Council. I only mention it because at that January 23, 2020 Meeting, Councilmember Buxton made a motion to remove that second review–which I strenuously opposed. It did not pass. And yet, unless I was sleeping, snacking, or whatever, I do not recall us conducting that second review.
Details, details.
*Update: 12/07/21: When first published, the number was $715k. I have updated to reflect the current version as presented in the latest version of our packet.
†Update: 12/07/21: I incorrectly wrote that the City Manager was currently at M49E, which was incorrect. He is currently at M49D. I have adjusted the dollar amount accordingly. I regret the error.
The web site is an essential city service
And this is the site as it exists on 12/05/2021
Notice anything missing? The Search. I guess someone decided that since it doesn’t work, hey… who needs it right? 😃
It’s just a problem…
Everyone gets so cringey at all my ‘gotchas’ but here’s the thing: If we were doing a road closure, a pipe was plugged, a wire was down; we would tell the public. “Hey, something is wrong. We acknowledge that it’s a problem. We’re working on it.” Nobody’s ‘feelings’ would be hurt. It’s just a problem of City services that needs to be addressed.
By failing, over and over, for months and months to even acknowledge that there is a problem, it has sent the clear signal that there is no problem. Neither the City or my colleagues feel that it is an issue… or if it is… access to public information in no way rises to the level of any more ‘traditional’ concerns of public safety or civil engineering.
Information is a primary function of government…
I disagree. I believe that access to public information is a primary function and a primary duty of every government. Without having trustworthy access to information, one cannot have good government.
And the polite thing to do, in my opinion, would be to tell the public, “Hey, we know there are issues. We’re working on it.” But that never happens. Stuff just ‘changes’.
This puts me in a very awkward position. I have to point out this stuff because I do believe that access to public information is a primary duty of every government. Really. No. Really.
But what I have been told, repeatedly, is that somehow my complaints hurt people’s feelings. What is clear, just by seeing what happens, is that the web site is in no way considered important to the City.
So let me ask you this…
If you had a problem with code enforcement. If there was a landslide. Or a downed wire. Or any other issue of concern to you, would you give a damn about the City’s feelings? Of course not. That wouldn’t even enter into your thinking. You’re just reporting a problem. You pay taxes, the City provides services.
There is absolutely no difference.
We have a legal and ethical duty to provide the highest possible standard of access to public information… just as we have duties to provide that same QoS when it comes to public safety, roads, storm water, etc.
Making our digital presence on par with other services will require a cultural shift.
One other thing…
I want to take that one step further: It is the duty of government to always provide access to information commensurate with the current state of technology. At the risk of being even more repetitious than usual, I’m gonna repeat that because it matters.
One excuse that we’ll get is that “it’s fine the way it is.”
Absolutely not.
When we upgrade any essential service, we want to make sure that it conforms to the current best practice. When we install anything from a sidewalk to whatever, the expectation is that it will be done the best we can do it. Maybe not ‘bleeding edge’, but as close as we can afford.
Our web site is nowhere near close to best practice–regardless of budget. It simply does not meet a minimum standard of service for a corporation of our size and audience.
I have been a long time user and tenant of the marina. You may have heard all of this before but this is what I know. The docks are in desperate need of up dating. The salmon glory days have past, and there is not much need for as many smaller slips. Times have changed and the marina needs to change to fill the gap. The larger slips attract year round tenants and lead to a steady income stream. The waiting list for boats over 30/plus feet has always been long. An upgrade and shuffling of the docks is needed. The marina has been a cash cow for the city for years, the money has been siphoned off, and it has not been allowed to build a sufficient capital improvement fund to do the needed up grades. Now the the docks need of upgrading and it’s a crime to pull money from the general fund to keep it operating. The marina is part of the city.
I am not in complete agreement with making the marina floor a three ring circus, but a path up 223 would encourage visiting boaters to get off the marina floor and do business up town. On that note, how much does our tourist budget go to promoting up town Des Moines to visiting boater? Say like Poulsbo, Gig Harbor, you get the idea.
I do not advocate leaving the smaller boater out of the mix. With many people living in condos or apartments storing smaller boats on bunks is a plus. If you look at the decked storage units on the north end of Lake Union, Edmonds and others, they are full. They will be year round tenants, again steady income stream. (I do miss the sling lift.) Converting the boat sheds to a bunk system would probably have the smallest impact on the views. Putting one on the south end of the parking lot would be a eye sore!!!!
Keep the marina a marina and promote the business in town. Make easier access and more friendly for visitors. The marina is not the only thing the city has to offer. We just need to make the city safer and more accessible.
I think there is a lot of agreement on most of what you wrote. The 223rd Steps, the slip mix, some dry stack. I also dearly miss the sling. But no one seriously believes fishing will return any time soon. And if the City had not moved money from the Marina to pay bills we would not feel pressured now.
But beyond that, there is a lot of controversy and not a lot of real data to support any particular strategy. My main goal is to get the entire community engaged in the discussion.
Thanks for writing.
Keep up with good work. We do need to have open .meetings and full disclosures.
We need to get the Centers open for the youths and seniors. All other Cengers are open including Kent. We need to keep our youthd busy with activities.
At last reply’s from the public .! we need So much more of this type of open government . Let’s keep this type of dialog going Thanks JC Kaylene Moon