|
MAKING IT WORK
The purpose of this newsletter is to provide information, inspire involvement, and make things work in this great city. You can request additional information or comment on the newsletter by emailing richard.conlin@seattle.gov.
CONTENTS:
LIBRARIES LEVY ON AUGUST BALLOT
On Monday, April 9, the Council unanimously approved placing a seven-year, $122.6 million property tax levy on the August 7, 2012, ballot to support the Seattle Public Library (SPL). This levy will restore the services that have been cut from the City budget since the recession began, protect the library from further cuts, and add funding FOR expanded collections, including electronic materials, hours that make branches more accessible for working families and school children, better technology, and maintenance of the Central Library and 26 branches.
All over the country, libraries are being cut back as City governments are challenged by the recession. In many other cities, this has led to large public protests, and City governments have responded by trying to find ways to keep libraries going. The Council has managed to avoid drastic cuts that would close branches or eviscerate services. However, the cuts we have been forced to make have reduced the accessibility of library services and greatly strained staff and facility resources.
The proposed levy would raise $17 million in 2013 and grow by 1% per year. The assessment would be about $0.15 per $1,000 of assessed value. The annual cost to the owner of a residential property with the median assessed value for Seattle ($361,000) would be around $52.
Approximately 95% of SPL's $52 million operating budget for 2012 is supported by the City's General Fund. SPL's capital budget is largely funded by the City's Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues. Both of these resources have been greatly constrained in the past four years.
Recognizing this, the Council initiated a process of researching funding options in 2010, and in 2011 continued this effort by calling for a proposal for a potential 2012 levy. In December 2011, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 31345, which set forth a structure, process and schedule for the development of a 2012 library ballot measure. CB 117425 is the result of the work plan articulated in Resolution 31345 and would authorize the placement of a specific library levy proposal on the August 2012 ballot.
If approved by Seattle voters, proceeds from that levy would support the following four categories of library services from January 2013 through December 2019:
- Open hours and access - $26.8 million (annual average - $3.8 million)
SPL would add back operating hours at branch libraries and increase the reference services available at branches and the Central Library. Funding would also be provided for security services and technology support. Of the 15 branches that are currently open five days per week, 13 would gain Sunday hours and two would transition to a seven day schedule. SPL would no longer have a week-long, system-wide closure each year.
- Collections - $17.3 million (annual average - $2.5 million)
The variety and depth of SPL's collection would be increased to better meet patron demand for materials. The collections component of the levy would also fund increased purchasing of downloadable materials, such as e-books, and more copies of popular material in print, digital, and other formats.
- Technology - $10.6 million (annual average - $1.5 million)
The Library would replace and upgrade computers and technology infrastructure that was purchased during the Libraries for All capital program. Levy funding would also support improvements to SPL's online services.
- Regular and Major Maintenance - $26 million (annual average - $3.7 million)
Levy funds would provide additional support for regular and major maintenance activities at SPL's 27 buildings. This would not include funding for any new or expanded library facilities.
The remaining funds generated by the levy would be used to restore funding for open hours and services that would otherwise be cut in 2013 due to the City's continuing fiscal challenges. For more information, click here.
Back to Contents
SEATTLE'S ECONOMIC RECOVERY STRATEGY IS WORKING
In the last several recessions, Seattle has lagged the national recovery, sometimes by as long as a year. But, in this recession, we are at the leading edge of recovery.
Washington's official numbers show the state's unemployment rate at 8.2% in February, about equal to the national average – but that the Seattle area rate had dropped to 7.4%. A study by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, reports that the number of jobs increased by 2.2 percent in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area between January 2011 and January 2012, making Seattle the fifth fastest growing job market in the nation during that period.
Seattle Office of Economic Development (OED) estimates are that the rate in Seattle itself may be as low as 6.6%. This is based on numbers showing that Seattle has recovered more than half of the jobs lost in the 2008-2009 recession, and that employment is continuing to grow.
While we still have a lot of work to do to reach full levels of employment, this is all good news. And, while the actions of City government are only one of the reasons that Seattle is doing better, these numbers do seem to indicate that we are following the right strategy and working well with our business community in finding ways to foster a healthy economy.
Some of the actions that Seattle has taken in direct response to the recession have contributed to the recovery. The Council has approved two resolutions (31135 in 2009 and 31282 in 2011) laying out economic recovery strategies, and many of these measures have been implemented. Steps like accelerating Parks Levy projects and working closely with the State and Sound Transit to move transportation projects forward have directly created jobs.
Other actions, like supporting expanded job training and creating new programs to encourage people to visit neighborhood business districts ("Only in Seattle") have helped workers and small businesses to improve their prospects. And attention to the basics, like delivering high quality electricity at some of the lowest rates in the country and giving public safety and the human services safety net budget priority, have also helped foster economic confidence and security.
But it is our long-range strategies that have laid the groundwork for economic success and that will continue to do so in the future. Seattle is committed to the new urban model – encouraging a diverse downtown that mixes economic activity and housing, supporting growing sectors like technology and biotech, sponsoring a welcoming environment for creativity that attracts young urban professionals, assisting business retention both small and large, developing the framework for a citywide network of ‘urban villages' linked by diverse transportation options, and reworking City regulations and investments to become more nimble and effective.
That's why economic thinkers like Richard Florida predict a bright future for Seattle. Noting that "Seattle has seen more residents move into its downtown core since 1990 than Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego or even San Francisco.", Florida suggests that "Seattle provides a good example of the back-to-the-downtown trend that is reshaping cities across the United States as workers relocate to formerly neglected urban cores that offer transit, walkability and central location." He continues: "As I wrote in The Great Reset, "A new spatial fix - a new geography of working and living - will be our only path back to renewed economic growth, confidence and prosperity." That's exactly the path Seattle is following."
The new economy demands great agility and continued attention to both the big picture and the myriad of details that running a big city requires. Our continued success will depend on our continued effective commitment. It will also require us to tackle and resolve big issues like public safety concerns as well as the challenge of repairing the Seawall and creating a waterfront that will be the next major step forward in the vision for a vital and sustainable city – while maintaining the confidence and support of the Seattle community.
Back to Contents
NORTH BEACON HILL AND OTHELLO REZONES
On Monday, April 9, the Council unanimously approved rezones in the North Beacon Hill and Othello Residential Urban Villages. These rezones are designed to take the next stage in implementing the neighborhood and station area plans for those neighborhoods, by creating the zoning needed to promote additional development around the station.
The North Beacon Hill legislation will rezone 85 parcels on 12 acres of land around the station, along with expanding the Station Area Overlay boundary to include the block immediately north of the light rail station and some areas on the north end of the Beacon Hill business district. It is estimated that these rezones will almost double the current capacity for growth in the North Beacon Hill Residential Urban Village, from 677 units to 1294 units. Not all of this capacity is expected to be used in the 2031 planning horizon. The actual number of units expected to be developed by 2031 increases from 233 to 446.
This is still a fairly modest level of development for an area served by light rail, but it represents the best estimate of what developers would actually be willing to proceed with over this time period. The rezones include requirements for affordable housing. Development on the site owned by El Centro de La Raza between El Centro and the station is expected to create a major portion of the new housing. This project will also include community amenities such as a plaza and spaces for small businesses that serve community residents.
The Othello legislation will rezone 29 acres of land around the station. These rezones will increase the estimated capacity in the Othello station area from 6046 units to 6350 units, a fairly modest change. The actual number of projected units to be developed by 2031 will increase from 2082 to 2187. These rezones also include requirements for affordable housing. The Othello area has already had significant new development at New Holly and in the Station at Othello project. The City hopes that these minor modifications will create a pattern of development that will be more balanced and attractive to property owners and the development community.
Achieving the 2187 units by 2031 would be a major addition to Seattle's housing stock, and still leave significant capacity for future growth.
The proposals were developed through an extensive community process, beginning in 2009. A set of Comprehensive Plan Amendments derived from this planning process and providing the framework for these zoning changes were approved as part of the 2010-2011 Comprehensive Plan Update in April of 2011. This legislation completes the plan update process.
These are the first neighborhood plans to be formally updated as part of a systematic process focusing on the opportunities for transit oriented development. The updating process was initially limited to light rail station areas, especially those that do not have sufficient zoning to truly support the effective utilization of the light rail line. The Mount Baker Station area (part of the North Rainier Neighborhood Plan) was also designated for review in this phase, but that work has not yet come to the Council. The Roosevelt neighborhood initiated a plan update on its own, a modified version of which has already been adopted by the Council.
The next phase of plan updates expanded the criteria to include neighborhoods served by extensive bus service, and covers the Bitter Lake Neighborhood Plan on Metro's Aurora Rapid Ride line along with the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan on the light rail line. I am advocating for an accelerated process to consider future plan updates, and I am especially concerned that the City focus on the Northgate and University District plans, which are the two urban centers located on the next extension of light rail. The City has already extensively updated zoning on Capitol Hill.
Experience from the initial plan updates suggests that communities are fairly satisfied with their existing plans. Neighborhoods have asked that the City concentrate on implementing the remaining items from the original plans, rather than trying to create whole new lists of implementation measures. Updates could be more carefully focused on changes to reflect changing conditions, such as the land use changes in response to increased transit opportunities that were the major new elements in the North Beacon Hill and Othello plans. My hope is that by concentrating on implementing existing plans and limiting updates to changed conditions, we can start doing as many as four plan updates per year.
Back to Contents
HUNGER FREE COMMUNITY
United Way of King County has boldly announced a goal of making King County a hunger free community. The City Council applauds this goal, and on March 15, I was a plenary speaker at a Hunger Action Forum convened by United Way, the Seattle Food Council, and the Meals Partnership Coalition to look at strategies for meeting this goal. On March 19 the Council joined United Way in proclaiming Hunger Awareness Week as part of the campaign.
Fulfilling this commitment will require a sophisticated and complex engagement with the people of our community. It will take resources, understanding, and the will to follow through. Seattle has funded programs to provide food for people who can't afford to eat as part of our human services budget. Continuing this work and addressing hunger in a more comprehensive way is a critical part of my Local Food Action Initiative, and we have increased our financial and programmatic commitment over the last several years.
The critical step in dealing with hunger is to make linkages between the underlying causes. The reason people don't have enough to eat is, of course, the direct result of poverty – and there are many causes for poverty, including lack of jobs, lack of education, problems of health and disability, discrimination, and many others. A campaign against hunger is also a campaign against poverty.
But there is still another critical linkage to make, and that is the link between hunger and obesity – both of which are directly connected to poverty and health. Hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin – people with limited incomes often wind up eating food that leads to poor nutrition, because what they perceive as cheap food (it may not actually be cheaper, but that is the perception) tends to be high in empty calories and low in the variety of nutrients that lead to good health. Sadly, these dual crises are also linked to a national food policy that has encouraged and subsidized the production of commodity foods – especially corn and other monocultures, which are then translated into the variety of less healthy and less expensive foods that wind up in the low income diet. There are two vicious circles here: one is the link between federal subsidies which lead to less healthy food being cheap, and the other being the link between poverty, cheap food, and obesity and other health problems, which in turn makes it more difficult to get out of poverty. Children who get poor nutrition don't do as well in school, and adults who are obese and unhealthy have difficulties getting and keeping work. In order to truly end hunger and obesity, we have to break these cycles.
That is a daunting undertaking, and we know that it will take time, energy, and resources to end hunger, obesity, and poverty. But every step in the right direction will help some people, and if we organize ourselves we can create virtuous cycles instead: good food means healthier kids who can do better in school and have a better chance of acquiring the skills to get out of poverty.
So the challenge is multi-tiered. In the short-term, our work must involve feeding the hungry now, by supporting food banks, getting food stamps to more of those eligible, and other steps to address the immediate needs of the hungry. But at the same time, we must ensure that food banks continue to increase their resources of fresh and healthy products, that we increase the number of low income people who can grow their own food, either at p-patches or other places. Finally, we must advance the whole array of other activities that will help to change our food system. These include steps like protecting farmland, promoting farmers markets and getting them equipped to accept food stamps, working to get fresh food available in areas where there are no stores that carry it, setting up learning gardens and community kitchens at our community centers, and providing land for people in the City to organize urban farms (as Seattle has at Marra Farms in South Park, at the community farm launched last year at Rainier Vista, and at our newest farm in Rainier Beach, which will go into production this year). And challenging the federal government to take a new direction in the renewal of the Farm Bill.
We are just beginning to understand all the benefits that the work on local food can bring to our society – a better environment, a stronger economy, a healthier population, and lively and vibrant communities. To foster a hunger free King County, our task is to ensure that those benefits are shared by everyone. United Way has launched the vision – and now we have to do the work to bring it to fruition.
Back to Contents
CITIES TO PROTECT RURAL LAND UNDER TDR PROGRAM
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has approved a resolution that will engage cities in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to protect rural lands in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Under this program, counties would buy the right to develop from landowners, thus ensuring that those lands will remain as farmland or other rural activity. Cities would then require developers to purchase TDRs if the developers wish to build to the maximum allowed height and density.
The "Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program" implements a law approved by the Legislature in 2011, thanks to the work of the Cascade Land Conservancy (now known as Forterra). The law also creates a voluntary program that allows infrastructure financing through the incremental increase in property values that result from development in a specific area. The area must be designated to receive the development rights transferred from the rural lands and must have infrastructure needs that are necessary to fund in order to generate the development that will use the transferred development rights. Under these circumstances, the local government can receive up to 75% of the incremental property taxes that would otherwise be paid to other entities in order to finance the necessary infrastructure.
The first step in implementing this program is for each county to calculate the total number of development rights that may be available on eligible natural resource and rural lands. The Puget Sound Regional Council then allocates these development rights to cities that are eligible under the state legislation to receive them. Only King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are covered by the legislation.
Each county calculated the number of development rights that can be transferred by determining how many acres of agricultural, forest, other rural land are currently unprotected, and how many development rights exist on that land that could be purchased from the property owners. King County then added the number of development units that already have been purchased under other programs and not yet transferred into urban areas. King County proposed allocating 7,643 development rights, Pierce County 5,371, and Snohomish County 11,619, for a total of 24,633 development rights. If the program succeeds, 811,535 rural acres would be permanently protected from development. The role of PSRC is to allocate those development rights to each city based on the City's share of regional housing and employment targets, modified by "other relevant factors".
The City of Seattle strongly supports this program, and we are looking forward to participating. However, we also have a complex structure for allocating development rights that includes requiring developers to fund affordable housing, protecting historic buildings, and other priorities within the City. We were concerned that an unrealistic number of development rights were proposed to be allocated to Seattle under this program – that the Counties were not going to be able to obtain as many rights as they thought they could, and that Seattle would not be able to use the nearly 6,300 TDR's that were allocated to us. After much negotiation, a new formula was agreed to that reduced the total number of TDR's expected to be generated in this program by 25%, which we believe is a more accurate reflection of what is realistically possible, and included a couple of other provisions that directed more TDR's to smaller cities, who generally do not have the existing TDR type of programs that Seattle does. The result is that Seattle will receive 3,440 TDR's through this program – still more than half the number of TDR's expected to be generated in King County.
This new allocation is still ambitious. In order for the City to use the infrastructure financing tool that is part of this program, developers or the City need to purchase a certain portion of those 3,440 TDRs. City staff is currently evaluating the costs, benefits and risks to determine whether the program will be financially feasible for the City. We are hopeful that we will find a way to participate in this program that could protect so much of our farmland and other rural areas, and are looking forward to the next steps. These would include ordinances approved by the County and City to get the program up and working. If all goes well, we hope to have those completed in the next few months.
Back to Contents
MAKING THE BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX WORK
Washington has a unique business tax system: businesses are taxed on their gross income (Business and Occupation Tax – B&O Tax), rather than their profits. There's a statewide B&O Tax, and some 40 cities have local B&O Taxes. And there are three different ways that cities can charge this tax: on gross receipts (like the state does), on a per-employee basis ("Head Tax"), or on the amount of space that the business occupies (Square Footage Tax).
This makes life complicated for businesses, and, in addition to long-standing debates about whether Washington should move to an income tax, and whether taxes should be reduced, business organizations have asked for tax simplification to make it easier for businesses to know and process their tax liabilities.
We have just gone through a flurry of activity on business tax simplification over the last few months. The end result is good news. What started out as a proposed State action that would have caused potentially serious problems for Seattle (including the possible loss of up to $45 million in revenue per year), has now become agreement on a win-win process that will take steps that will work for businesses and state and local governments as well. Here's the story of how Seattle made that happen.
Last fall the State began an effort to take over the collection of local B&O Taxes. As a talking point, the idea of setting up a central collection for both state and local taxes sounds good – in principle, this makes a lot of sense. But we had a lot of concerns, and this issue is a great example of why details matter. When you look at how this would actually work, it turns out to be much more complicated. For example:
- State collection does not actually benefit most businesses very much – only a tiny fraction of businesses operate in more than one city, so most businesses will see little or no reduction in their paperwork.
- Cities have very few classifications with different tax rates (there are only three of significance in Seattle), while the state has almost fifty different classifications and rates. It is much harder to interpret the State system than the City systems.
- It was unclear how the State would account for businesses that operate in different cities and how auditing would be managed. A failure to enforce which cities were owed B&O taxes would result in significant projected revenue losses for Seattle and the other cities charging the B&O tax.
We were able to turn this issue around:
- The five cities that collect about 90% of B&O revenues (Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Bellevue, and Everett) are working together to develop a common web portal that will eliminate most of the issues for businesses that operate in more than one City, and we believe that we can do this for much less than it would take the State to develop new software.
- Seattle worked closely with our local Chamber, and was able to work out an agreement to address some important issues for Seattle business. The Chamber understood our concerns, and agreed that losing tax revenue for Seattle was a problem. Seattle is fortunate to have a business community that is willing to pay its fair share for City services – while, of course, urging the City to be more efficient and effective.
- The Association of Washington Cities supported us in Olympia.
- Legislators were responsive and understood our concerns.
- Ultimately, cities wound up in productive discussions with the Governor's office.
The agreement at the State level is that the Governor and legislature will focus on reducing the number of classifications and rates – which would help business at little or no cost to government. Of course, those who benefit from classifications that give them tax breaks are likely to oppose changes, so this will not be easy, but the principle is widely accepted.
At the local level, the five cities have agreed to move forward with their common portal, which will greatly reduce paperwork for those businesses that operate in multiple cities. Seattle has also agreed to work on policies that will clarify some provisions of our tax code that are ambiguous – a task force has been working on this, and revisions will come before the Council in the next few weeks. We are also exploring possible more far-reaching simplification, with a common agreement that the City is ready to take steps that make it easier for businesses to calculate and pay taxes, as long as these do not reduce the amount of taxes that we collect. We think there may be more win-wins to find as we explore this issue through the City-business tax forces that have been created.
Four months ago we faced struggles between business and government, and the prospect of losing millions of dollars in the Seattle budget. Because we reached out and worked to find common ground, we have averted the problem and are seeing cooperation instead of conflict. It's a good news story for all of us.
Back to Contents
LIGHT RAIL STATION AT 130TH STREET AND I-5
 The Sound Transit II (ST II) vote in 2008 funded an ambitious plan to build a light rail line all the way to Lynnwood. University Link between downtown and the UW is under construction; Northgate Link from the UW to Northgate is in final design; and Lynnwood Link from Northgate to Lynnwood is completing scoping and is ready to move into formal environmental review. That means that if Seattle wants input on a line that will open ten years in the future, we have to make our preferences known now.
And we just successfully did that. While the ST II ballot measure did not include any Seattle stations between Northgate and 145th, the Sound Transit Capital Committee has now unanimously approved considering a station at 130th Street and I-5. The Committee agreed to study the Sound Transit staff recommended configurations for the portion of the line within Seattle and Shoreline – the original ST Ii line with stations at 145th and 185th, and an alternative with stations at 130th, 155th, and 185th.
I proposed an amendment to the list of EIS alternatives that would consider an alignment with stations at 130th, 145th, and 185th, and the Committee approved my proposal without dissent – immediately after an intense debate about studying a possible station at 175th over the opposition of Shoreline and a negative analysis by Sound Transit staff. We partnered with the City of Shoreline to put together this proposal -- Shoreline considers 155th and 175th as poor prospects for transit oriented development (TOD) and station siting.
I advanced my proposal with the unanimous support of the Seattle City Council, which approved Resolution 31168, supporting the study of a light rail station at 130th in addition to the proposed station at 145th Street. We supported this alternative because 130th would have frequent and convenient transit connections to the nearby Bitter Lake Hub Urban Village and Lake City Hub Urban Village. In addition, the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan recommends including at least one station in Seattle north of Northgate and adjacent to I-5 in order to provide access for Seattle residents while reducing traffic congestion and other impacts on the Northgate area. And, while 130th and I-5 is not a great location for transit oriented development, it does offer some opportunities.
Sound Transit has already made a major decision on the Lynnwood corridor that limits TOD prospects by finding that an alignment oriented around SR 99 was not affordable. This alignment, unfortunately, was estimated to cost some $800 million more than the I-5 corridor. The I-5 corridor does have the advantage of providing direct and rapid service for the two urban centers of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, but the TOD opportunities in King County are limited. Shoreline, however, believes that we can develop TOD around the 185th Street station, and that 145th also has some possibilities. By adding 130th to this configuration, we open the possibility for TOD work within Seattle: as noted above, there is some potential near the station as well as two nearby urban villages.
Back to Contents
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS AGAINST OBESITY
Obesity continues to be a major public health challenge. Too many Americans are overweight enough that their health is suffering, with diseases like diabetes rising dramatically. In Seattle 50% of adults and 22% of youth are overweight or obese. The problem is that healthy food is often expensive and not widely available, while unhealthy food is easy to get and heavily marketed. And Americans do not have enough access to physical activity in daily life.
Public Health of Seattle and King County is a national leader in developing and implementing policies and programs that will help. As we implement these, we will see real benefits in better health and quality of life, lower health care costs, and more productive and happy residents.
Here's what we are implementing:
- Guidelines for building codes that promote active design and access to water fountains.
- Standards for nutrition and physical activity at childcare, after school programs, and recreation centers, along with implementation assistance.
- Land use guidelines promoting physical activity, which have been adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council (see reference)
- Guidelines for healthy products in vending machines.
- An interactive educational exhibit at the Pacific Science Center.
- Promotion and assistance activities for Healthy Corner Stores and Healthy Churches.
- Arrangements to accept WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food assistance) at Farmers Markets.
Seattle's Parks Department has launched a major campaign, called "Healthy Parks, Healthy You", designed to make parks and recreation facilities the centers for physical activity and good nutrition that they logically should be. Department staff recognized that they needed to be the models for the behavior that they are seeking to spread. They began with steps to change the internal culture by providing staff access to community center exercise equipment, creating a staff weight loss challenge, providing healthy food along with nutrition and physical activity education at meetings and trainings, and fostering staff discussion about how to encourage and create conditions for healthy living..
They then moved on to implement program changes for the public:
- 100% healthy products in vending machines.
- Healthy meal policies for childcare and community programs, along with education on healthy cooking.
- Gardens and community kitchens at Community Centers.
- Drop off sites for Community Supported Agriculture baskets at 7 Community Centers.
Surveys demonstrate that these actions are creating results among participants, who report doing more exercise and changing diet and fitness behaviors.
King County has pioneered a Healthy Incentives program to provide financial incentives for personnel to engage in health behaviors. They have reduced health care costs by $23 million in 2011 and $38 million in 2012 as a result. Seattle's School Based Health Centers (funded under the Families and Education Levy) are preventing obesity through providing messaging and counseling to students, and fostering cooking and gardening programs. The "Farm to Table" program has brought together community organizations to provide healthier food at more than 50 meal sites that provide meals for low income children and seniors.
All of these programs, in combination with the many other actions of individuals, businesses, and communities, are starting to make a difference. But they are only the beginning. Changing the cultural norms around food, physical activity, and healthy eating will require an array of strategies and commitments.
Too many parts of our social fabric discourage activities that can bring about better health. We are hoping to rebalance that equation by creating the conditions that will make good choices easier and more affordable. Those kinds of efforts will encourage the individual, family, and community choices that will bring about the results that we need to enable personal and community health.
Back to Contents
PEOPLES GREENSTREET PROJECT ON SOUTH ORCAS
On a day of driving rain and snow in March, which perfectly demonstrated the effectiveness of the project, a hardy gathering of neighbors, design professionals, and city and county staff celebrated the official opening of the South Orcas Greenstreet project.
The South Orcas Greenstreet is an innovative, community-driven natural drainage project developed by Cari Simson, a Georgetown neighborhood leader and former staff to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition. It's a great example of how people in Seattle can take the lead in challenging environmental problems – and how local government and businesses can embrace and support this activism. And, unfortunately, how our regulations can make life difficult for this assemblage of people of good will. But we can change all that!
Six households on South Orcas joined together to create rain gardens in front of their houses. Before the project, water ponded in low points on this relatively flat street, and did not flow evenly towards the storm drain. King County is looking for ways to reduce street runoff into the drain anyway, because this drain is a combined sewer, and has overflows into the Duwamish. This project will divert an estimated 5,376 gallons of runoff per year – a modest part of solving the overflow problem, but such projects can add up over time, and King County welcomed this as a demonstration and a real contribution.
Fortunately, this street has a wide planting strip, so there was space for rain garden swales. The community received funding from the legal settlement fund that the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance uses to encourage community projects, along with in-kind services from SvR Design and Gary Merlino Construction.
The City wanted to help make it happen as well, but unfortunately there are rules that had to be followed, and that meant that the Street Improvement Permit required an engineering survey ($10,000), a $5200 surety bond for the construction, and an inspection fee of $2200 – all for a $32,000 project. It is the rule for any street project that requires curb cuts, but the rule did not contemplate community efforts like this one. These kind of rules are very important to managing the right-of-way when a major development is planning to take actions that affect the street, but this is a different type of project.
Fortunately, City Departments recognized that this was way out of proportion, and clearly would discourage such efforts, which we want to encourage. I asked the Departments to pull together a team to design a permit process that could apply to these kinds of projects, and they agreed. If it requires legislation to make community work like this possible, I am happy to sponsor that, but we think it can likely be done within the Departments, by carefully carving out an exception process to the standard system.
Once again, the people of Seattle have shown that they want to be part of solving community problems, an attitude that the City fosters through much of our work, particularly the Neighborhood Matching Fund. But sometimes we need to find a way to get out of the way of the community, and I am confident that we can find a way to make that possible!
Back to Contents
SLIVER ON THE RIVER ANNEXATION TAKES CRUCIAL STEPS FORWARD
The Sound Transit II (ST II) vote in 2008 funded an ambitious plan to build a light rail line all the way to Lynnwood. University Link between downtown and the UW is under construction; Northgate Link from the UW to Northgate is in final design; and Lynnwood Link from Northgate to Lynnwood is completing scoping and is ready to move into formal environmental review. That means that if Seattle wants input on a line that will open ten years in the future, we have to make our preferences known now.
The King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), the body comprised of County and City representatives that approves policy relating to implementation of Growth Management in King County, has unanimously approved a City of Seattle proposal to designate the ‘Sliver on the River' in South Park as a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) for Seattle. This sends the designation first to King County and then to cities for formal approval by jurisdictions representing 70% of King County population. While the window for action on this may extend through this fall, this is essentially a formality in this case, since there is no indication of any opposition (and we don't even have to campaign for action, since King County is supportive and failure to take action by Cities is considered ratification of the GMPC vote).
The GMPC action followed on the heels of Council approval of an amendment to Seattle's Comprehensive Plan that designated this small area (17.25 acres, 155 inhabitants) for annexation. The area is surrounded by Seattle except on the river side, and was left out of the City limits because it is the landing area for the South Park Bridge, owned by King County. With the new bridge under construction, Seattle is negotiating for ownership and a maintenance agreement that will help fund the costs of bridge operation.
The annexation process in Washington is a cumbersome one. Once we have completed this action, we still have to approve an Interlocal Agreement with King County and submit the proposed annexation to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for approval. The real action is in the negotiations with King County on maintenance of the bridge and other service transition issues, since there is no likely or plausible opposition to the proposed boundaries. If all goes well, the annexation could take place as early as sometime in 2013.
Seattle is also proposing to annex another leftover parcel, called the Duwamish Triangle, which is primarily industrial, including 124 acres but only 6 residents. This parcel is bordered by Tukwila, and both cities have already received approval for it as a Potential Annexation Area. That could lead to a real contest before the Boundary Review Board, but we believe that it is closely linked enough to Seattle that we would likely be successful.
The kicker in both of these areas, however, are potential costs that Seattle might have to bear in order to complete the annexation and bring the areas up to urban standards. There is strong agreement that South Park deserves to be united so that Fire, Police, and other services can be provided on a more rational basis, and that the two areas together will provide ample revenue to more than cover those costs to the general fund (the Duwamish Triangle brings a great deal of revenue from business taxes with little expense, which is the reason that Tukwila is interested in it).
The concern is with potential capital costs and environmental liabilities associated with past pollution in the Duwamish Triangle, and with the lack of sewer and drainage infrastructure in both areas. Most of the area has informal drainage and septic tanks. Together these items could total in excess of $100 million, according to a City analysis. Although the capital costs could be spread over 30 years, there would still be noticeable impacts on utility rates. The City will seek assistance from King County for these costs, but even if there is some sharing of responsibility, the City will still have to make a decision as to whether these costs can be managed.
So, despite the progress being made, there is still a long road to annexation.
Nonetheless, the actions by the Council including the Sliver in the Comprehensive Plan and the approval by the GMPC are significant steps in the right direction, and we can celebrate them as steps forward on the journey to reunite the South Park community.
Back to Contents
QUOTE:
"Modern politicians proudly announce their desire to sweep away bureaucracy. The contemporary prejudice is that it slows you down, clogs things up; but if you take a historical view, it is bureaucracy that sees you through the rocky patches and enables the state to survive. Bureaucracy is not evidence of inertia… it can be life-saving continuity…"
-- Neil MacGregor, Director, the British Museum
DEEP THOUGHT:
"Any idiot can face a crisis, it's day-to-day living that wears you out."
-- Anton Chekhov
Richard Conlin
Your Seattle City Councilmember
Back to Contents
Back to MAKING IT WORK Newsletters |
