dollar sign

On Monday, May 14, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 31380, joining some 100 other cities and other governments calling for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision that granted corporations political rights as ‘persons’.  The 5 to 4 decision, in the case known as ‘Citizens United’ (the name of the corporate front organization that brought the lawsuit against campaign finance laws), essentially undid campaign finance regulation at the federal level and freed corporations to spend as much money as they want to influence elections.  It is not yet clear to what extent this also undoes state and local campaign finance regulations and even disclosure requirements.

It is unusual for the Council to take a position on a federal issue that is not directly related to the City’s ongoing work.  In this case there is a direct connection, as Seattle has long been in the forefront of campaign finance reform.  We pioneered disclosure and limits on contribution size, and even had a form of public financing in place in the 1970’s until the Washington State Legislature took away our authority to implement that.  While we are always searching for ways to improve our campaign finance management system, we are proud of what we have accomplished.  We believe that we can defend it against the implications of the Citizens United decision, but there is some risk that it could be affected as lower courts construe the Supreme Court action.

But beyond the integrity of our own election system, there is a larger concern with the future of democracy in America.  There have been many struggles over how to effectively regulate and limit the disproportionate influence of money in the American political system, and an ongoing effort to find the best model at the federal, state, and local levels.  That reflects the vitality of our democracy, as we work through such complex issues to come up with the fairest solution.  Many such situations wind up in court cases, and courts often have to make careful determinations about fairness and appropriateness.

But the Supreme Court did not carefully review the law and strike down areas that could be problematic.  Instead, they rendered a decision that essentially swept away the playing field, ending virtually all possibilities for federal campaign finance reform.  As journalist Jeffrey Toobin put it:  “The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom the raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.”

It appears that the only way that can be reversed would be to amend the Constitution (unless the Court itself backs down in some fashion).  And the only way that will happen is through a grassroots movement for change.  That’s why so many cities, counties, and states are passing such resolutions, and why it makes sense for Seattle to weigh in.  Our own laws are at stake — and the health of our democratic system and the long term future of the republic.

City of Seattle Seal

On Wednesday, May 9, the Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee (PLUS) agreed to a revised proposal developed by the Seattle Planning Commission that adds portions of the City to the area already exempt from minimum parking requirements.  The action is part of a larger package of regulatory reforms designed to stimulate economic activity by removing unnecessary and redundant regulatory requirements.

Removing minimum parking requirements does not prohibit developers from including parking in their projects, and is not intended to suggest that cars will not play an important role in most household’s transportation system.  What it does is allow the market to play a greater role in determining how much parking will be included in a particular project. 

In many cases, developers are already including greater amounts of parking than required under code, and this is likely to continue where projects are designed to serve a market where tenants are willing to pay the extra cost of having parking.  However, for buildings that serve populations that do not tend to own as many vehicles and rely more on transit or other transportation alternatives (such as low income housing projects, senior housing projects, projects in areas well served by transit, and projects that serve students and younger adults), removing mandatory requirements allows the builder to plan for the appropriate amount of parking, thus reducing the cost of the building.  This can mean lower, more competitive rents, or, in the case of publicly financed low income housing projects, more units of housing for the same amount of funding.

The City currently exempts projects in downtown and certain commercial and multifamily zones from minimum parking requirements.  About 5670 acres of the City have no minimum parking requirements for residential development.  The new legislation removes approximately 540 additional acres from minimum parking requirements, in areas that have the highest level of transit service.  Another 2590 acres with frequent transit service would have the required minimums reduced by 50%.

Parking would continue to be required in areas where the presence of readily available street parking could tempt developers to reduce the amount of parking in a project to the point where parking congestion is created that adversely affects neighborhoods.

The proposal on parking requirements has been consistently misrepresented as a major change, and Councilmembers emphasized that this was a modest expansion of the current code and that it in no way prohibits parking – merely leaves the number of spaces up to market factors.

The package of regulatory reforms will next be discussed in Committee on Wednesday, May 23^rd, and may be voted out to Full Council at that meeting.  Final Council approval is likely to occur by the middle of June at the latest.

1947 garbage truck (municipal archives)

The Seattle City Council is authorizing a pilot program to test the idea of moving to garbage collection every other week.  The pilot program, which will be implemented for 800 customers in four neighborhoods from July through December, will examine what rate structure best rewards people for minimizing their garbage, while avoiding unwanted negative impacts.

Every other week garbage collection could provide one more incentive for waste reduction, cut garbage truck traffic in our neighborhoods by 20%, cut fuel consumption, greenhouse emissions, and air pollution by a corresponding 20%, and reduce overall system costs by $6 million annually.  If people can adapt to this change, the cost savings will be passed on to rate payers as the Council adopts new rates in the future.  Seattle is rightfully proud of our commitment to recycling and waste reduction.  We have adopted universal recycling and organics collections and dramatically reduced the amount of garbage we send to the landfill.  We’ve banned disposable items that have readily available substitutes, like Styrofoam takeout containers and plastic grocery bags.  We’re designing the rebuilding of our transfer stations to make it easy and convenient to recycle building materials and other items.  And we continue to work to find new ways to reduce garbage costs.

Since the Zero Waste Strategy was approved by the Council in 2007 we have accelerated our rate of progress.  Universal organics collection was a key step for single family residences, and we are now extending it to multi-family residences.  The things that actually have to go into the garbage can are down to a few kinds of plastics and some other items (like kitty litter and disposable diapers) that are pretty challenging to recycle.  Many customers, even those with the smallest garbage containers, either do not set out their containers every week or set them out half-empty.

The question that the pilot program will test is whether moving to every other week collection is possible for Seattle customers, and what rate structure will be most effective in preserving fairness and the incentive to reduce waste.  The 800 customers who will be enrolled in the pilot program will have an immediate rate reduction in their solid waste rate.  If they choose to increase the size of their can rather than increase their waste reduction efforts and make sure that they are using their recycling and organics cans to the greatest extent possible, they will pay a higher rate.

The pilot will test how many customers will increase the size the of their container and whether the rate structure makes a difference, if there are any negative impacts to customers and the neighborhood, and whether there is decreased waste as a result of implementing this change. 

We hope to learn whether we can implement such a program citywide.  If the pilot demonstrates that people can adapt to this change with little or no negative repercussions, then the City can proceed with implementation, and we can realize the benefits of reduced waste, reduced truck traffic, and reduced cost to ratepayers.

A number of other cities are experimenting with this collection model, but few have a population as committed to recycling and waste reduction as Seattle.  Because of that, we are hopeful that we may be able to implement one more step on the road to zero waste.

Map of the "Sliver on the River"

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.

City of Seattle Seal

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 Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, 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 a potentially 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.

"Only in Seattle" OED image

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.

Photo from komonews.com

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.

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O’Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Special Committee to discuss Seawall

SEATTLE – The Seattle City Council’s Special Committee on the Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program will meet after Full Council on Monday, April 23. 

The Committee will discuss public safety and protection of the Central Waterfront, the downtown business district, transportation and public infrastructure, a possible bond measure to replace the Elliot Bay Seawall and the Seawall design, schedule, cost estimates and next steps.

WHEN:
Monday, April 23, 2012, following Full Council
(approximately 2:30 p.m.)

WHERE:
Council Chambers, Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Ave, Second floor, Seattle 98104

View the committee agenda here.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

City of Seattle Seal

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!

Councilmember Richard Conlin frequents the Seattle Center, especially over the Memorial Day weekend and the Northwest Folklife Festival.  Find out how many years Councilmember Conlin has attended Folklife and the special role he plays by watching the following video.

Some historical perspective from Northwest Folklife:

Every year since 1972 Northwest Folklife has presented the Northwest Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center on Memorial Day Weekend.

The first Festival presented over 300 performers to an enthusiastic audience over Memorial Day weekend, and was hailed as a successful and needed addition to Northwest arts programs. Today, the four-day Festival attracts an audience of about 250,000 visitors and has over 6,000 volunteer performers and 800 volunteers. Visitors from all over the world come to Seattle Center to take part in the weekend’s activities, but the focus remains local–all performers hail from communities in the Northwest. The Folklife Festival is a truly Northwest experience, our diversity and our commonality told through music and dance.

Visit the Seattle Municipal Archives Folklife Audio Collection at http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/folk1.htm.

For more information on this weekend’s Next 50 opening celebration at the Seattle Center, visit http://www.thenextfifty.org/.

Seattle Municipal Archives has some excellent resources on the 1962 World’s Fair.  Click to view digital files, text files.  Image files can be viewed here and here.

Seattle Municipal Archives Item #139028