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.

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!

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

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

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 145^th, the Sound Transit Capital Committee has now unanimously approved considering a station at 130^th 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 145^th and 185^th, and an alternative with stations at 130^th, 155^th, and 185^th. 

I proposed an amendment to the list of EIS alternatives that would consider an alignment with stations at 130^th, 145^th, and 185^th, and the Committee approved my proposal without dissent – immediately after an intense debate about studying a possible station at 175^th 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 155^th and 175^th 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 130^th 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 130^th 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 185^th Street station, and that 145^th also has some possibilities.  By adding 130^th 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.

A final alignment decision will be made after the EIS has been completed, in the summer of 2013.  At that time, we will have better information on the costs and prospects for the configurations under study, and hopefully will be able to make a good case for including the 130^th station in the Preferred Alternative.  Construction would start in 2018, with service beginning in 2023.

Watch Seattle City Councilmembers share their
favorite Seattle Center memories

SEATTLE - In anticipation of the Seattle Center's Next Fifty celebration kick-off on Saturday, April 21, Seattle City Councilmembers sat down to share their favorite Seattle Center memories. Tune in to our Council Connection blog over the next week as they share their stories.

What:
Seattle City Councilmembers share their Seattle Center memories

When:
Morning and afternoon blog postings, April 16-20, 2012

Where:
Council Connection Blog at http://council.seattle.gov/
Subscribe to the RSS feed at http://council.seattle.gov/feed/

For more information on the Seattle Center's Next Fifty celebration, including the schedule of events, visit http://seattlecenter.com/news/detail.aspx?id=1719.

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

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.

City of Seattle's economic programs recognized nationally
League of Cities touts three business engagement programs

Today Mayor Mike McGinn and Councilmember Richard Conlin celebrated the National League of Cities (NLC)' tool kit for local leaders, entrepreneurs and small businesses. The tool kit highlights the economic development practices of seven cities, including Seattle's Office of Economic Development (OED)'s business services program.

"We are committed to providing access to services to local businesses to help them grow and compete in our local economy," said Mayor McGinn. "I congratulate my staff and our Office of Economic Development for their work to forward the goals of my Seattle Jobs Plan. I also thank Councilmember Conlin for his work to support Seattle's local economy. The National League of Cities' recognition of our work is further evidence that Seattle is on the right track."

Under the Mayor's Seattle Jobs Plan, the Office of Economic Development has developed a number of programs to better serve the local business community. Three of the programs: the Business Retention and Expansion Program; the monthly City Business Casual networking series; and the Citywide Business Advocacy Team (CBAT), are highlighted as successful examples of how to engage business communities and promote economic development.

"As President of the City Council when the recession hit, my first priority was to get Seattle's economy back on track. These programs are examples of the Office of Economic Development's key role in supporting our business sector and getting people back to work," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, NLC board member, and chair of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "Economic recovery cannot happen by itself and the purpose of my Economic Recovery Resolution, is to make it easier to do business in Seattle by identifying and removing unnecessary barriers to growth and helping the private sector thrive. The tools highlighted by the National League of Cities are working in Seattle and I believe they can help other cities too."

Business Retention and Expansion Program
OED created the Business Retention and Expansion Program to actively reach out to businesses to understand their needs, help them navigate government processes and connect them to resources. Interactions with individual businesses are tracked by staff, ensuring proper follow-up and identification of systematic and recurring problems. This information is then used to advocate for policy or services changes to better reflect the on-the-ground needs of local businesses.

Through partnerships with key stakeholders, such as the Downtown Seattle Association, enterpriseSeattle, Environmental Coalition of South Seattle, Manufacturing Industrial Council and Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association, OED communicates directly with the local business community and respond to its needs. Over the past two years, OED has conducted 1,219 such business visits and provided 671 businesses with resources and assistance.

"OED staff work hard at continuous improvement of our business assistance programs," said Council President Sally J. Clark, chair of the Council's Committee on Economic Resiliency and Regional Relations. "Staff know that even a little support to a small business owner can mean more jobs, more business buzz in a neighborhood and overall success in the city. I look forward to studying the other cities' efforts for great ideas."

City Business Casual
The monthly City Business Casual networking series provides the Seattle business community with regular, direct access to business-focused city officials, including influential city leaders and key department heads and representatives. Business owners and advocates have a chance to ask questions, suggest ideas, and troubleshoot specific issues in an informal and relaxed setting. For upcoming dates, visit the City Business Casual webpage.

Citywide Business Advocacy Team (CBAT)
The Citywide Business Advocacy Team helps businesses navigate government services, with over 75 businesses assisted in 2011 on issues ranging from permitting to public safety to land use. The key to its success is the interdepartmental group with representation from all of the major departments involved in regulatory, zoning and economic development issues, including Economic Development, Planning and Development, Transportation, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, Police, Fire and Finance and Administrative Services.

"We have developed finance and advocacy programs to support micro enterprises, small and growing businesses, and our larger employers," said Steve Johnson, director of the Office of Economic Development. "Our priority remains to continue to execute programs that are relevant and meet the needs of businesses throughout Seattle."

OED also has a business services portal that directs businesses to resources they need to START | GROW | or GREEN their businesses at www.growseattle.com.

National League of Cities
The National League of Cities (NLC) is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. Working in partnership with the 49 state municipal leagues, NLC serves as a resource to and an advocate for the more than 19,000 cities, villages and towns it represents.

Learn more at the National League of Cities' Supporting Entrepreneurs and Small Business Toolkit.

See the full City of Seattle's Office of Economic Development profile at the Seattle, Washington profile under City examples.

City's Office of Economic Development (OED)
OED supports a healthy business environment and empowers companies to grow and compete. We provide services directly to businesses through advocacy, retention and expansion assistance, and workforce development. OED has several financing options for businesses, including options for small to medium to large businesses. Visit www.growseattle.com to access city services for businesses, and for more information about our office, visit www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment.

Seattle Jobs Plan
Mayor Mike McGinn's vision for next generation economic development that creates a sustainable economy with shared prosperity in Seattle was launched in August 2010. It consists of new and existing policies, programs and investments designed to help create quality jobs, protect the environment, and ensure that taxpayers get true value from the city of Seattle's public investments. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/mayor/jobsplan.

Seattle City Council
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.

All Mayor's Office press conferences, town halls and general public meetings are archived by Seattle Channel. Many town halls and press conferences are also broadcast live to the web. Sign up for The Reader, our office newsletter, at our website. And learn more about your neighbors and the mayor’s activities on our blog.

###

Office of the Mayor

Seattle City Council

Library leaders and city officials join together in support of levy for The Seattle Public Library

Seattle Public Library Board President Marie McCaffrey, City Librarian Marcellus Turner, Mayor Mike McGinn and City Councilmember Richard Conlin announced support for a Library levy to restore cuts and improve core services at a noon press conference at Seattle's Central Library. City officials and Library leaders were joined by scores of Library patrons at the event.

The Library levy would fund increased Library hours, build the collection of books and materials, enhance computers and online services and improve building maintenance. The plan grew out of a two-year process that involved comments from more than 39,000 residents through public meetings, open houses, surveys, focus groups and forums. There were more than 14 million visits to The Seattle Public Library last year and over 11 million books and materials circulated.

The City Council is expected to vote on legislation that would authorize an Aug. 7, 2012, ballot for a Library levy at 2:30 p.m. today.

The seven-year Library levy of $17 million annually would stabilize the Library budget after four years of cuts that have eroded services. The Library has been closed for one week each year since 2009, 15 of 26 branches are closed two days a week, and the budget to buy books and other items has been cut by more than 13 percent since 2009. The levy would also provide an estimated $5 million to address anticipated cuts in 2013. The Library would continue to rely on the city's general fund for the majority of its budget. At about 15 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, the levy would cost the median homeowner approximately $52 a year.

"We owe a huge thank you not only to the mayor and council for their collaboration and support, but also to the people of Seattle who helped shape the plan over the past two years," said McCaffrey. "This is an important step toward completing the vision of the 1998 'Libraries for All' bond measure, which resulted in new and improved libraries across the city."

McGinn said people depend on libraries for access to information and resources they need to succeed. "Libraries are the great equalizers for people of all ages," he said. "A strong Library system contributes to the economic, educational and cultural vitality of our city." He noted that libraries are key partners in supporting his initiatives for youth and families and to bolster civic engagement. "Libraries support our residents looking for work, students needing homework assistance, and people who cannot afford a computer," he said. "Our libraries are educational centers in every community and gathering places for neighborhood meetings and activities."

Conlin initiated a study of alternative funding options for the Library in 2010 after recognizing the city's fiscal challenges and declining tax revenues were affecting services. A levy package grew out of that effort.

"At the City Council's April 3 public hearing, Library patrons spoke to how they have been impacted by the cuts and how critical it was that our libraries be open with the resources and assistance they need," Conlin said. "Libraries are particularly important in challenging economic times and it just doesn't make sense to cut services when people need them the most."

City Librarian Marcellus Turner said the plan was built to reflect the priorities of the community. "Libraries are the city's classrooms for both individuals and the community," he said. "The Library levy will help ensure we can provide essential Library services now and for the next generation of users." 

Ninety-one-year-old Eleanor Owen and local mystery writer Kathrine Beck also spoke about how the Library has helped them, and their families and friends, throughout their lives.

For more information, visit www.spl.org and select "Libraries for All: A Plan for the Present, A Foundation for the Future," or call 206-386-4636.

For more information contact: Andra Addison, communications director, 206-386-4103

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.

King Ccounty forest canopy (photo from crawford.tardigrade.net)

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.

Levy proposal addresses ongoing fiscal challenges and supports critical services

What:
After a two-year process involving the thoughtful contributions of tens of thousands of residents and collaboration between The Seattle Public Library, Mayor’s Office and City Council, a proposal to stabilize Library funding and improve Library services is complete.

Who:
Library Board President Marie McCaffrey, City Librarian Marcellus Turner, Mayor Mike McGinn and Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin will announce a proposed Library levy to address ongoing financial challenges and support key service priorities: Library hours, collections, technology and building maintenance.

91-year-old Library patron Eleanor Owen and Seattle author Kathrine Beck will also speak about the Library’s importance to the city’s educational, cultural and economic vitality.

Library and city officials will be joined by other members of the City Council and Library Board, as well as the Friends of the Library, Library Foundation and members of the public.

When:
Noon Monday, April 9, 2012

Schedule:
Noon to 12:30 p.m. – Event Remarks
Library Board president, mayor, City Councilman Richard Conlin and city librarian will talk about the levy plan and what it offers the community. Two Library patrons will talk about the importance of libraries in their lives. The press will receive copies of the proposal, “Libraries for All: A Plan for the Present, A Foundation for the Future.”

12:30 p.m. – 1 p.m. - Other Broadcast Opportunities
Library officials, the mayor, City Council members, Library patrons Eleanor Owen and Kathrine Beck, as well as Library Friends and Foundation members available for further interviews. Opportunities to film baby story time, tax assistance program and poetry group and other activities happening in the building. City Council is scheduled to vote on the proposed Library levy for the Aug. 7, 2012 ballot at 2:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 600 Fourth Ave.

Where:
The Central Library, 1000 Fourth Ave., Level 3

Information:
Andra Addison, The Seattle Public Library, 206-386-4103, andra.addison@spl.org
Caroline Ullmann, The Seattle Public Library, 206-615-1627, caroline.ullmann@spl.org

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.

Downtown Central Library

On Monday, April 9, the Council will vote on placing a seven-year, $122.6 million property tax levy on the August 7, 2012, ballot to support the Seattle Public Library (SPL).  The Council is likely to approve the ordinance.  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 that will take the library to a new level of service designed for the 21^st century.  This means expanded collections, including electronic materials, hours that make branches more accessible for working families and school children, better technology, and maintenance that will protect the investments in our 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.  Seattle values our libraries, and 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:

1)   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.

2)    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.

3)    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.

4)    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, see http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/library_levy.htm

City of Seattle Seal

On Monday, April 2, 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  (Council Bill 117375) 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 (Council Bill 117412) 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.

Feedback sought on proposed Seattle Public Library Levy

SEATTLE – Providing funding stability for the Seattle Public Library is a priority for the City of Seattle. Seattle City Councilmembers invite members of the public to provide their feedback on the proposed Library Levy legislation before the Council. 

WHAT:
Public Hearing on the proposed Library Levy

WHEN:
Tuesday, April 3, 5:30 p.m. (Sign up will open at 5 p.m.)

WHERE:
Council Chambers, second floor
Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle 98104

Over the last two years, the Library has involved over 39,000 residents in strategic planning for the Library's future and setting priorities for Library services. In community surveys, focus groups panel discussions, five open houses, and three community meetings, the people of Seattle came together to identify the priorities for the Library's work now and in the future. Please take this opportunity to share your feedback on the proposed seven year Library Levy.

For more information on the proposed Library Levy, please visit the Council's issue page.  The proposed legislation will likely be voted on at the April 9, meeting of the Special Committee on the Library Levy at 2:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.

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.

That’s why I have been working on finding a way to get these buildings upgraded, and we have now taken the next step by convening a Policy Committee of interested stakeholders to provide feedback to City Staff, the Mayor and City Council on options for developing a retrofit program for URMs. 

There are over 800 URM buildings in Seattle.  These buildings are typically relatively low, located in older areas of the City, and are of the highest concern for possible collapse when a large earthquake takes place.  The earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand, Japan, and Indonesia over the last few years have demonstrated how dangerous a place the Pacific Rim is – and the only region not yet affected is the Pacific Northwest.  URM buildings were generally built before modern earthquake resistant building codes, and these recent earthquakes demonstrated how much of a concern URMs are.   DPD and the Office of Emergency Management have already completed a study of the number of buildings in Seattle and developed an understanding of the risk that we face and what we need to do in order to reduce that risk.

The good news is that URMs are a relatively small part of our building stock.  The bad news is that retrofits are generally expensive, and that these buildings are older and relatively modest in size, so making improvements could be difficult for building owners.  If the City simply adopted a regulation requiring these buildings to be retrofitted, this is likely to be financially unaffordable for many owners, and they would either close the buildings or tear them down.  Many of these buildings are elegant and historically significant structures with many years of expected life.  Even with the recovery gathering steam, this is not a great time to tell building owners to spend large sums of money that will have little immediate payback.

That’s the dilemma we face.  On the one hand, we can keep gambling that the earthquake won’t hit – on the other hand, we could force serious economic consequences on the property owners and the City.  We need to find a way to connect these issues, to stop taking risks while making retrofits affordable.  That’s why the collection of business owners, property owners, residents, and interested individuals who were identified and invited by the City to participate in this process will discuss a variety of topics and provide recommendations and advice to the City for inclusion in the URM policy.  What we would like them to do is figure out a way that the City can support a retrofit process in a way that is affordable to property owners, by figuring out how to lower costs, stretch out requirements over time, or provide incentives that will help property owners make this happen.

It’s not an easy assignment, and there are no readily available answers.  But we must take action, and I am looking forward to receiving their report, to be completed by the fall of 2012. Legislation implementing a URM retrofit program is anticipated to be submitted to the City Council in early 2013.

Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women, but it has often not been part of the discussion around community housing programs.  Victims/survivors face considerable challenges in accessing the safe shelters and transitional and permanent housing that is critical for their long term safety.

In order to better understand the complexity of this issue, Councilmembers took a training course on domestic violence, conducted by the Human Services Department, using the model they have developed for City employees.  The Council also held a forum with a panel of domestic violence survivors and housing providers to review the areas of need, and to identify where our resources could be most useful.

Our Human Services Department (HSD) will take three major actions in 2012 to implement this priority.

• In the spring of 2012, HSD will begin the process of renewing and modifying our contracts with human service providers who work on homelessness and housing issues.  The new approach to funding will be guided by a long-term Strategic Investment Plan that was developed in 2011 in conjunction with an extensive community process, and that involved staff working on domestic violence issues.  Through this process and the restructuring of the funding process to follow the Investment Plan, there will be greater opportunities to ensure that agencies working with homeless populations and low income housing take into account the specific needs of domestic violence victims in their proposals.
• Because domestic violence survivors often have children with them, and also have skills and education that can allow them to quickly reestablish themselves in a secure living situation, they are good candidates for rapid transition into more stable housing.  HSD is currently piloting a program that will provide rental/move-in assistance for clients who have left their homes under stress or are ready to move from temporary shelter into more stable housing.  The program has $27,500 in funding initially, and if it turns out to be successful, HSD would look at moving other funds into it.
• Shelter providers need training on how to deal with the special concerns of domestic violence survivors.  Among other critical issues, survivors often fear further abuse, and need to have their identities safeguarded and privacy protected.  The City has partnered with the King County Housing Authority to conduct training sessions to increase the awareness of domestic violence among housing providers, and to give them guidance on how they might modify their screening or intake procedures to serve domestic violence victims more effectively.

There are tens of thousands of domestic violence incidents annually in King County, and there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of the women and women with children   experiencing homelessness are victims/survivors.  These programs will help to ensure that appropriate services are provided and that these women and children have the opportunities to reestablish secure lives.

Washington has a long and proud heritage of cooperatives and other alternative institutions.  We have the largest percentage of publicly-owned electricity providers of any state, many successful credit unions, and some of the largest and most well-known cooperatives in the country – like Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI), the Puget Consumers Co-Op (PCC), and Group Health Cooperative (GHC).

Yet, until recently, Washington required that public agencies deposit their funds only in commercial banks, and prohibited them from using credit unions.  State law requires that any entity that will hold public funds must be certified as a ‘public depository’ by the Public Deposit Protection Commission, which consists of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the State Treasurer.  This Commission can only authorize funds to be deposited in entities which will provide collateral that can be used as part of a pool to ensure that public funds are secure if any institution fails or defaults.  These fairly conservative financial policies were designed and have been managed to, appropriately, ensure that public funds are stewarded properly and that the public is not put at risk.

Credit unions don’t quite fit into these standards, so they were not certified to hold public funds.  In 2010, the legislature decided that credit unions should be eligible, but that they would provide security in a different way, through their protection as part of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.  But the 2010 legislation only allowed the use of state-chartered credit unions (many credit unions hold national charters), and limited deposits to $100,000, even though credit union accounts are insured up to $250,000.

The new legislation adds nationally –chartered credit unions to the list of eligible institutions, and sets the ceiling for public deposits at the maximum deposit insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which now is $250,000 but which could increase in future years.

This is a modest change, but one which contributes to opening up the financial system.  Congratulations and thanks to the legislature and the sponsors for making this happen.

Comprehensive Plan map, 1950

Maligning ‘Seattle Process’ is somewhat of a cottage industry in our town, although it may not generate much economic development.  We have some processes that drag on way past their sell-by date.  And sometimes people deride process because it didn’t go their way.  Seattle has a history of effective engagement, but often we don’t design an appropriate process for decision making – such as in the recent Roosevelt neighborhood rezone decision.

BTW, IMHO it should not be called ‘Seattle Process’.  It’s actually ‘Washington process’, and the ownership has to be shared.  Some recent outstanding examples – the viaduct replacement, SR 520, and Sound Transit East Link – are all processes that are not Seattle exclusive, and not even Seattle driven.

The Seattle Neighborhood Planning Process is an example of the right way to do public involvement and decision making.  This was a complicated process in which 37 neighborhoods analyzed their current conditions, involved some 20,000 residents, and came up with a set of land use recommendations to meet their assigned targets under the Comprehensive Plan, and recommendations for neighborhood improvements.  The process was commissioned in 1995.  The planning was undertaken in 1996-1998.  By 1999 all 37 plans had been completed and approved by the Seattle City Council, along with all land use revisions required to meet the Comprehensive Plan targets.  Since then, the City has worked its way through the 6000 recommendations for improvements, and has completed most of them.

Why did the original neighborhood planning process work so well?  Because the parameters were laid out with great precision, and there was a clear deadline for decision making.  Each neighborhood was given a growth target, and was asked to decide whether it was reasonable.  Each neighborhood knew that they were entitled to come up with a wish list for implementation if they met the targets.  And each neighborhood was given both the process guidelines and resources for carrying out the planning process.  Neighborhood planning started in an atmosphere of controversy.  Discontent over growth targets fueled political insurgency culminating in the election of Comprehensive Plan opponent Charlie Chong to the City Council in a special election in 1996.  But every neighborhood ultimately accepted its growth target and completed the process on time and on budget.

Here are five steps that we can take to make processes work better:

1. Remember that an effective process is something to be proud of and to embrace.  Involving people in decisions that will affect their lives is a good thing, and it usually improves outcomes – none of us is as smart as all of us, and there are countless examples of projects that are better because of thoughtful engagement.
2. Keep in mind that process works best when the steps are clearly laid out in advance, possible outcomes are defined, and there are clear statements about how input will be used, who will make the final decision, and when that will happen.  A lack of clarity around these parameters is the most frequent cause of frustration.  Sometimes circumstances change, and you have to reopen processes, but that should be the exception, not the norm.  It’s not fair to the many busy people in our community, who have the right to be involved, to drag out processes until the only people participating are the last ones standing.  People have the right to know when their involvement is meaningful, and continuing to punt decisions down the field “to hear more input” will, perhaps counter-intuitively, often lead to less real involvement, not more.
3. Make sure to manage the process so that constructive input gets attention, and sabotage is recognized and discouraged.  Everyone should have the opportunity to express their opinion.  But when you are making critical decisions, the people who are involved must agree to commit to an outcome and be willing to live with a reasonable one, even if it wasn’t their first choice.  As Hubert Humphrey once put it:  “The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”  It is important to challenge all parties to engage constructively.
4. Strive for consensus; seek win-win solutions; but acknowledge that not every outcome will be win-win.  An honest effort to come up with consensus can pay huge dividends.  Seeking to engage people’s interests and values, rather than engaging in positional debate, offers the best chance to achieve agreement. If people’s input is respected, and a sincere effort is made to accommodate it, they will most often be willing to go along with an outcome.  At some point (defined by the parameters set out in advance!), the discussion has to come to a close, and if consensus cannot be achieved, that should be acknowledged and everyone encouraged to look for an outcome that is acceptable.
5. Work to improve the structures that make decision making harder.  Decision authority is fragmented, both legally and institutionally, in our system.  Sometimes this is a strength, as having many people engaged helps to build the constituency that will ensure that good decisions are implemented.  But sometimes there are too many steps, too many hurdles, and multiple decision makers who don’t necessarily have an interest in bringing things to a close.  Reviewing some of the obstacles to making a decision could be a constructive effort to shorten the decision making process.

Conflict is not a bad thing.  It is how we manage conflict that determines whether we will be successful.  The best way to do that is to lay out clear principles and parameters in advance, work to engage all relevant parties, and then make the call when it is clear that input has been taken and it is time to come to a decision.  And the first – and critical – decision must be to commit to a process that is well-designed from the start.

• Support developing Food Web, an initiative to increase and sustain the capacity of the Puget Sound regional food system.
• Use the Seattle Farm Bill Principles as a tool to work with local, regional, and national partners to encourage local governments and others to support them and advocate for appropriate policy in the renewal of the Farm Bill.
• Convene community partners working on hunger issues to identify next steps to meet immediate needs.  Continue efforts towards a long-range campaign to meet the long-range needs of underserved communities by improving healthy food access and participating in community building around the food system.
• Work with the Regional Food Policy Council to create an Action Agenda and launch a project to inform and engage elected officials in food issues.
• Coordinate with state agencies and organizations around the state to strengthen Washington State food policy work, and raise the salience of food issues for candidates for Governor.
• Work with the Seattle Human Rights Commission to develop policies and practices around the concept of food as a basic human right.
• Create a campaign to promote the health and nutrition of City employees, modeled after the successful work in the Department of Parks and Recreation.
• Update and begin implementation of the P-Patch Strategic Plan.
• Support further action steps to make City and other public lands available for food production.
• Develop and adopt Phase 2 of the land use code changes to encourage food production and urban agriculture.
• Convene organizations working to preserve and enhance farm land in King County, including County agencies, the Agriculture Commission, and the King Conservation District, to develop coordinated strategies.
• Develop additional opportunities for expanding economic activity, marketing, and jobs in the local food economy including exploring how best to support Puget Sound Fresh.
• Increase connections between the city and local and regional farmers and increase ties with small and mid-sized farmers in Eastern Washington.
• Work with food system stakeholders to increase small-scale regional distribution that supports small farms and farmers.
• Continue to strengthen urban agriculture including finding a home for the business directory of urban agriculture related businesses in Seattle and the urban agriculture business association.
• Develop additional strategies for preserving farmland to produce food for Seattle residents in partnership with entities such as the Pike Place Market.
• Adopt a Transfer of Development Rights program to protect farmland.
• Solicit community feedback, approve, and begin implementing a Food System Policy Plan.  Work with the City food staff person to strengthen the City’s Interdepartmental Team on food and to identify and write grants and perform community outreach and policy development.
• Develop indicators of success in transforming the food system.
• Work with immigrants, refugees, and associated organizations to expand opportunities for market gardening and farming.
• Continue to work with and encourage community—led projects and the CPPW and CFG funded projects.
• Work with OEM and regional partners to strengthen the regional plan for food reserves for emergencies.
• Incorporate food system policies, goals, and implementation strategies in the Comprehensive Plan, revised Climate Action Plan, Neighborhood Plans, and Transportation planning.
• Secure adoption of healthy food guidelines for City vending machines.
• Consider how to take local food work to scale in transforming the local food system through developing the “Food Web” project.
• Work with the PSRC to develop an assessment tool for evaluating urban agriculture.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

The Sound Transit Board will engage in a policy discussion about integrating and valuing transit oriented development (TOD) at a Board retreat scheduled for early April.  Sound Transit (ST) has focused on building and operating transit systems, and has been especially cautious to maintain this focus with strong financial oversight since the financial problems that ST ran into a decade ago that caused the scaling back of the original ST light rail plan.

However, I have asked the Board to reconsider how TOD fits into the ST mission, as we begin thinking in a more sophisticated way about attracting and serving ridership.  Transit is, after all, about moving people, and land use and transit are not just linked, but two sides of the same coin.  Sound Transit has not hesitated to build park and rides — and operate them at no charge to drivers – in order to attract and serve riders.  ST investments in TOD will bring riders into the system who will not have to drive to get to transit lines, and it is time that we recognized that this is an investment worth making.

ST’s mission is to support and implement the voter approved transit plan.  Legally, ST has the ability to design stations and invest in TOD to achieve the number of riders projected in the documents presented to the voters.  The problem is that current financial policies consider the actual finances of the transportation system as the primary criterion for evaluating costs and benefits of a transaction.  They do not consider transit oriented development (TOD) as a factor in evaluating the financial return from property sales and investments around station areas.   

Thus, in a recent discussion evaluating the possibility of overbuilding the Roosevelt station and creating additional units of housing, ST staff assessed overbuilding costs as approximately $3.3 million, and anticipated revenues from the sale of the overbuilding rights as $1.6 million, leaving a $1.7 million gap.  The project was considered not to be cost effective, even though it would result in 48 housing units right over the station – the closest thing to guaranteed ridership one can imagine.

One way to change the evaluation of such projects would be to include revenues based on anticipated ridership.  A 48 unit development located adjacent to a station is likely to generate strong ridership.  Assume only about 1 regular rider for every two units, or 100 rides per day (to and from).  Assuming $3/ride in 2020, and 250 days a year of travel, yields 100 rides x 250 days x $3 = $75,000 annually.  ST could evaluate the investment based on this revenue as a rate of return on capital.  In Roosevelt, investing $1.7 million with a return of $75,000 annually is a 4.4% ROI.  This will increase over time as fares rise.

Of course, transit systems do not plan to fully fund their operating expenses from fare collections, so it would be anomalous to require 100% recovery from a TOD investment.  Multiplying the fare return by 2 would reflect collecting a conservative 50% of operating expenses, and would better reflect the value of these riders.  2 x 4.4 = 8.8%, a pretty good rate of return.

The Federal Transit Agency has begun using such tools to evaluate the financial actions of transit agencies, and would likely welcome engaging in a dialogue about valuing transit oriented development in this kind of approach.

The Board decided not to pursue the Roosevelt station overbuild, which has other complications, but did decide to review policy.  Decisions about the Northgate station will be made in the near future, and there is a much greater opportunity to shape these decisions towards TOD.  ST is considering a 500 car garage at Northgate as part of a range of options to cover required mitigation for lost parking places.  I think developing a serious strategy around TOD, in partnership with King County, Seattle, and private property owners, is a better direction for ST to focus on, partly using money that could be saved by reducing the replacement parking plan to the minimum requirement.

Seattle has now realized how important it is to develop housing around transit stations, and to include affordable housing in the mix.  We did not have a strong policy in place when the line was constructed in the Rainier Valley, and that has left us scrambling to catch up, rezone, and attract investments to those stations.  We have developed a great partnership on Capitol Hill, where the community has a visionary housing proposal that includes a major commitment to affordable housing.  Sound Transit and the City have been negotiating to ensure that ST’s surplusing policy on Capitol Hill is consistent with that vision, and we are close to concluding an agreement.

That makes me optimistic that we can change ST policy to be more focused on TOD on the lines currently in construction and planning.  I think the Board is ready for that discussion, and hope that the April retreat will result in giving that policy direction to the staff.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, a Catholic Church in Uptown (formerly known as Lower Queen Anne) has hosted a food bank for many years.  With the support and assistance of Food Lifeline, nearby grocery stores, and the people of the parish, the food bank provided not only groceries, but breakfasts and lunches for the hungry.  It operated with lots of great volunteer energy from its faith community, and a single full-time employee.  The monthly budget was only $2500.

But last November, the program ran out of funds, and had to lay off the coordinator, Elise Hale-Case, who has been running the program for the last few months, since graduating from Mount Holyoke College.  The food bank was scheduled to close after Thanksgiving. 

Then the generosity kicked in.  Articles about the closure appeared in the Seattle Times and the Queen Anne/Magnolia News.   A television station ran a report.  Elise decided to make an appeal on the programs web site, www.queenannefb.org

Emails, phone calls, letters, and personal donations poured in.  The web posting attracted people to donate from all around the country, but most of the donations came from right here, in our wonderful city.   The goal was to raise enough money to fund the organization for two years, $100,000, and they are just about there.

This is a small food bank, serving around a hundred people a day.  But it is important to those who are in need.  And I am very grateful to those who rallied around to keep it open.

The official reopening was a short and sweet ceremony with a couple of dozen volunteers, members of the fund-raising committee, and the priests from Sacred Heart.  I thanked all of them – and all those who donated – on behalf of the City.  We are committed to do all that we can as a City to provide food, shelter, and social services to the people of our City who need help, and our voters have pitched in on many occasions to support that effort.  Those public services are very important.

But our community thrives because of the volunteers and donors who step up to the plate in so many ways for the myriad of voluntary organizations like the food bank at Sacred Heart.  That’s what makes Seattle such an extraordinary place.

UW Dept. of Bioengineering, South Lake Union campus

Seattle is the proud home of the University of Washington, and also hosts Seattle University on First Hill and Seattle Pacific University on the north slope of Queen Anne, as well as a great set of community colleges.  And there is also the campus of Antioch University Seattle at 6^th and Battery near South Lake Union, and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute, which offers classes at 4^th and Vine.  Seattle’s universities and community colleges enrolled more than 106,000 students in the 2011-2012 academic year. 

Now a new complex of universities is emerging downtown, creating an interesting set of options for students and employers of students who are looking for additional course work, degrees, or research opportunities. Seattle policy makers should accelerate our work to embrace this development and the associated economic activity.

The original home of the University of Washington was downtown, in a group of blocks called the ‘Metropolitan Tract’, which the University still owns and receives substantial revenue from.  The Washington Territorial Legislature decided to locate the University in Seattle in 1860, early in the history of the Washington Territory.  Legend has it that Seattle was the third largest city at the time, and there were three public facilities to be allocated.  Walla Walla, as the largest city, got the state prison; Olympia, the second largest, got the State Capitol; and Seattle got the University, which existed only as a gleam in the eyes of those who foresaw its possible future.

Seattle has been very fortunate to have the University of Washington, not only as a great educational facility, but as a premier research institution which consistently ranks as one of the top recipients of federal funding contracts and grants.  UW is also a robust center for entrepreneurial activity.  In addition to a significant commitment to fostering the growth of small business through a variety of programs and an incubator facility, a number of companies have been launched by UW faculty, often to take the next steps in building commercial applications that can be spun off from research at the University.

The University of Washington School of Medicine has developed a campus in South Lake Union, designed to complement the emerging biotechnology and world health economic sectors that are centered in that neighborhood.  This campus now includes some 1250 researchers and staff in four buildings, and is expected to continue to expand.

Two other universities will be Joining Antioch and the UW South Lake Union campus in the emerging downtown university district.  City University of Seattle is an independent University with main offices (somewhat anomalously) in Bellevue.  They have made a decision that their future lies in reconciling their name with their location, but more importantly taking advantage of the urban setting and the transportation and housing options that Seattle offers for their students.  They have entered into a lease for the former P-I/Group Health building at 6^th and Wall, and will be opening their doors there in January of 2013.

Further strengthening this emerging educational center will be Northeastern University , based in Boston, which has announced its intent to establish a branch in Seattle that will ultimately serve up to 1000 students.  The Seattle campus will offer graduate degrees “tailored to the workforce needs of the local economy”.  While they have not selected a location as yet, downtown is their preferred option.

There is a wonderful synergy between great cities and great universities.  City University and Northeastern are locating downtown because of the value they place on being in the middle of vibrant, culturally rich, and diverse  neighborhoods with a dense concentration of residents and employers.  There will be prospective students, jobs, internship opportunities, and student housing in close proximity.  And others who are interested will have easy access because these areas are served by light rail, street cars, bus systems, and good bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  The City’s task is to ensure that these transportation systems are maintained and expanded, as well as to protect public safety and support other employers and housing opportunities.

The next economy will be built around creativity and a highly educated work force oriented towards lifelong learning.  The emerging downtown university complex bodes well for Seattle’s future in harvesting this potential.

Seattle City Council Committee calls for independent financial review of Seattle Public Utilities

SEATTLE – The Libraries, Utilities and Center Committee, during this morning’s discussion of fraud at Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), called for an independent review of SPU’s financial practices.

“We need to move forward now to immediately fix this problem. Ratepayers demand and deserve financial accountability from the utility. And they will get it,” said Councilmember Jean Godden, committee chair.

The Committee asked the City Auditor—an independent third party—to conduct an investigation of financial controls at SPU, particularly those related to accounts that could be subject to high risk transactions such as the water main accounts.

“The public trust has been broken. Only through systematic review and tight new financial controls can we restore trust and provide the services we all expect,” said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw.

The Committee requested that the City Auditor and SPU report to the Committee with a scope of work by March 27, 2012, and present plan details to the Committee at the April 3, 2012, meeting.

The plan will address the immediate water main extension revenue problem and recommend whether all SPU development fees should be part of the review. By the end of this week the Committee will send a letter to the City Auditor and SPU detailing issues it would like to see examined in their review.

“The Committee will participate in every step of this process,” said Councilmember Godden. “There will be no discussion of new utility rates until Seattle Public Utilities gets its house in order.”

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.

It is now time to take the Local Food Action Initiative to the next level of salience and organizational momentum.  The City has hired a Food Policy Coordinator, who will be based in the Office of Sustainability & Environment, and we are now seeking public input on the elements and priorities for city food policy for the next few years.

Those who are interested in this effort are invited to participate in Our City, Our Food, Our Future:  listening sessions on food in our community.  These sessions will focus on how we can implement a just, sustainable, and resilient food system where:

• All Seattleites have enough to eat and have access to affordable, local, healthy, culturally appropriate food. 
• It is easy to sell local and healthy food in Seattle. 
• It is easy to grow food in Seattle, whether for personal use or for business purposes.
• The City provides sustainable ways to prevent and deal with food waste.
• Our community is educated about eating local and healthy food.

The Office of Sustainability & Environment is hosting three public meetings to talk about what the City should do next to meet these goals.

• Tuesday March 13, 5:30-8:30 p.m.  Ravenna Eckstein Community Center (6535 Ravenna Ave NE)
• Friday March 16, 1:00-4:00 p.m.  City Hall, Bertha Knight Landes Room (600 4^th Avenue)
• Monday March 19, 5:30-8:30 p.m.  Southside Commons (3518 S Edmunds Street)

To participate, please RSVP by March 2^nd.  Contact Sharon Lerman at foodpolicy@seattle.gov with any questions. If you are unable to attend, there will be an opportunity to add your perspective online at www.seattle.gov/food.

You can get more information on the City’s food work and the listening sessions at  www.seattle.gov/food.  We look forward to hearing from you on where the Local Food Action Initiative should go in the future.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

On Thursday, February 23, the Sound Transit Board formally adopted a policy for naming stations and other Sound Transit facilities.  Before this, the naming process followed a design manual, but there was no Board policy.  This has become a problem as Sound Transit builds stations where there might be some controversy about the name, and as Sound Transit enters a new phase in its construction program, where there are multiple lines under construction.  In the not too distant future, there will be trains traveling on different lines to different destinations.  Right now, there is only Central Link Light Rail.  In the future, there will be a north-south line and an east-west line.

Under the new policy, there will be five criteria for deciding station/facility names:

• Reflect the nature of the environment:  neighborhoods, street names, landmarks, plus geographical locations
• Be brief and easy to read and remember
• Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines and requirements and be limited to 30 characters
• Avoid commercial references because they may change, prove confusing to the public and be costly to change
• Avoid similar names or words in existing facility names.

For naming lines, Sound Transit will use the common transit system method of identifying lines by color, with a direction for the train based on the last stop on the line.  For example, the north-south line could be the Blue Line, with northbound trains identified as ‘Blue Line to Northgate’ and southbound ‘Blue Line to Kent-Des Moines’ (if those are the station names), with the end point changed as the line is extended further.

Station names in South East Seattle originally were based on the names of the cross streets.  Neighborhood plans in both Columbia City (‘Edmunds Street Station’) and Rainier Beach (‘Henderson Street Station”) made strong representations that these names were relatively obscure and confusing in identifying the destinations served.  They also argued that they would be a disservice to the commercial districts and future housing developments in these neighborhoods by failing to highlight them.  The City Council agreed, and, as Chair of the Neighborhoods Committee, I led the successful effort to persuade the Sound Transit Board to adopt the current Columbia City and Rainier Beach station names.

As the line continues north in Seattle, most of the station names will be easy to agree on – Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, and Northgate are all widely accepted community names, and there is a lot of logic in naming the Husky Stadium station for the University of Washington.

The naming policy will become interesting when the Board considers the station at Brooklyn and 45^th.  Right now, this has the provisional name of the ‘Brooklyn Station’, but communities around the station are already lining up behind ‘University District Station’.  While there is some question of overlap with the ‘University of Washington Station’, I think we can probably overcome that.  The real problem is with the ‘University Street Station’ in downtown Seattle.  I think there is already a confusion problem with that and a ‘University of Washington Station’, but having three stations with ‘University’ in their names makes no sense.  Since the ‘University Street’ station has no relationship to an actual University, I think that’s the name that has to be changed.  This will require concurrence from King County and Metro.  I will urge Sound Transit to begin that process in the near future so that the way can be cleared for a rational discussion of how to name the stations that are around the actual University.

City of Seattle Seal

Council President Sally Clark has led us through a priority setting process for 2012, and the Council has identified an ambitious agenda of thirty initiatives, organized in five core priority areas.  We will all have involvement in the entire list in the course of the year.  Each Councilmember will lead on certain issues, usually those within their Committee portfolio, and play a major role in others where we have experience or involvement.  The core issues that I will take the lead on will be:

• Developing Transit Communities policies that ensure housing and job development is coordinated with transit corridors, and that provide guidance for neighborhood plans.
• Propose a levy to the voters that ensures Seattle’s library system has sufficient materials, staffing and computers to provide a sustainable level of service.
• Change zoning in South Lake Union to match the goals and potential of Seattle’s newest urban center.
• Ensure that Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, and Roosevelt neighborhoods get great development on former Sound Transit properties.
• Move forward on the Duwamish River clean-up and related environmental justice actions in South Seattle.

Here is the complete list of priorities:

PRIORITY #1: MAINTAINING SAFE, HEALTHY AND JUST COMMUNITIES

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

Take input from the Department of Justice, community, officers, and local and national experts to move Seattle into the forefront of effective urban policing. Commit to new strategies for police recruitment, training, supervision, and accountability. Monitor body-mounted cameras pilot program for SPD officers. Implement strategies that affirm, value, and strengthen all constituencies.

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION

Oversee the implementation and administration of the 2012-2018 Families and Education Levy, the City’s most critical investment in Seattle Public Schools.

Coordinate and advance the objectives of the Great Student Initiative to provide high-speed Internet access to low-income families with children in Seattle Public Schools.

SAFE SHELTER AND HOUSING

Continue to expand affordable housing options and services for people experiencing homelessness, ensure families have shelter options in 2012.

Devise strategies and funding options in the 2013-2014 budget to address unmet needs. Implement the Safe Parking Program pilot in Ballard.

Implement the Rental House Inspection Program to assure renters of safe housing, prevent deterioration of rental housing and provide clear, fair guidelines for property owners.

Spotlight discrimination in housing and develop policies to eliminate this injustice. Promote and advance strategies to educate residents and communities on Seattle’s fair housing and employment regulations.

PRIORITY #2: BUILDING HEALTHY, GREAT PLACES

DOWNTOWN

Establish a unified, clear community-driven vision for the remaking of Seattle’s waterfront. Make sure the proposed plan has the right combination of vision and practicality that will make it possible to fund replacement of the seawall and development of new waterfront elements.

Improve the downtown core through the Third Avenue Initiative. Work with the task force to produce and act on a clear plan to address public safety, transit mobility, retail health and a cleaner, more inviting environment for riders, shoppers and employees.

ENVIRONMENT

Adopt a Climate Action Plan that outlines short and long term policy paths for achieving the City’s goals to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Move forward on the Duwamish River clean-up and related environmental justice actions in South Seattle.

DEVELOPMENT

Adopt legislation making the Yesler Terrace redevelopment a model for sustainable, mixed-income communities, with a net increase in low-income units.

Change zoning in South Lake Union to match the goals and potential of Seattle’s newest urban center.

Develop Transit Communities policies that ensure housing and job development is coordinated with transit corridors, and that provide guidance for neighborhood plans.

Ensure that Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, and Roosevelt neighborhoods get the great development on former Sound Transit properties.

Break ground on construction of First Hill Streetcar between Pioneer Square, the International District, Little Saigon, First Hill and Capitol Hill. Oversee construction to minimize disruptions to nearby businesses and residences while ensuring start of service in early 2014.

PRIORITY #3: IMPROVING MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS

EFFECTIVE TRANSIT

Work with King County Metro Transit to lessen impacts from the County’s elimination of the Ride Free Area, procure new Electric Trolley Buses that improve service and attract new riders, ensure that restructured routes improve bus service for Seattle riders, and help Metro secure long-term sustainable funding from Olympia.

CONNECTIONS

Clear the way for better mobility between and through neighborhoods by embedding policies prioritizing neighborhood greenways, cycletracks, crosswalk and sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, paths and trails.

Develop a freight master plan while updating the bicycle master plan and acting on the pedestrian master plan.

PRIORITY #4: MAKING A MORE RESILIENT CITY

RESPONSIBLE TAXATION AND REGULATIONS

Review the City’s tax policies for opportunities to enhance fairness and consistency and to encourage small and large companies to do business in Seattle. Continue efforts to simplify licensing and permitting.

PARTNERSHIP

Reprise Seattle for Washington, dispatching Councilmembers to other parts of Puget Sound and Washington State to look for ways cities can help each other succeed.

Collaborate with the Port of Seattle, the Manufacturing Industrial Council, the Prosperity Partnership, and others to support development of living wage jobs in export, marine, life sciences and other opportunity sectors.

NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE

Develop a set of goals, policies, and a sustainable organizational structure ensuring that the Department of Neighborhoods delivers services that are responsive to communities and supportive of community-initiated projects.

Propose a levy to the voters that ensures Seattle’s library system has sufficient materials, staffing and computers to provide a sustainable level of service.

PRIORITY #5: INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING

Review prioritization of operations and major projects by Seattle Department of Transportation. Develop recommendations for more efficient operations, making the prioritization of projects more understandable to the public with clear reporting of departmental performance measures.

Adopt a six-year strategic plan and new financial policies for Seattle City Light, including a rate structure that supports conservation, equity and stability. Improve customer service and access to information about energy use, allowing customers to manage energy use and bills.

Initiate long-range strategic capital and operations planning for parks, the Seattle Center and other cultural facilities.

Develop a strategic approach for the City’s major capital needs, including replacement of the seawall, building a new North Police Precinct and construction of the City’s elements of the SR 99 Program.

BUDGET

Develop outcome-based budgeting and improve program evaluation to ensure that taxpayer money is invested effectively.

Maintain basic city services in the face of shrinking revenues.

Integrate financial empowerment tools for low-income individuals and families into the City’s current services like shelters, workforce training and family support.

Photo from urbanfarmhub.org

At its February 10 meeting, the Regional Food Policy Council (RFPC) agreed to the recommendations of its Steering Committee for an action agenda for 2012.  The RFPC, which is entering its second year, worked during its first year to define its mission and scope of work and to understand the way in which the food system operates and the range of players involved in it.  While we continue to learn more about this very complex area, RFPC members are eager to start carrying out our mission to “develop just and integrated policy and action recommendations that promote health, sustain and strengthen the local and regional food system, and engage and partner with agriculture, business, communities and governments in the four-county region.”

The RFPC agreed to work on the following three major areas:

• Creating a Policy Landscape Map and developing and working on policy recommendations on specific issues.  We are beginning to understand the food system and how it operates.  The next step is to identify the policies that shape that system and to determine how those policies are set, whether by governmental action or by the private sector.  We can then focus on critical policy changes that the RFPC can work on in 2012.  Having a clear understanding of the policy landscape will give us the information necessary to identify the most important points of leverage. 
• Focusing attention on issues around agriculture and land use.  The RFPC has identified the preservation of agricultural land and the livelihood of farmers as critical issues in building a stronger food system.  Among the areas under consideration are:

1. Developing food and agricultural policy recommendations for Comprehensive Plans;
2. Developing a policy framework that will balance the needs of farmers and regulations regarding building in the flood plain, protecting critical areas, the encroachment of development, and infrastructure needs for farm pads, packing, processing, and farmworker housing;
3. Protecting land and water resources needed for sustained food production;
4. Encouraging the retention of farmers and the education of people who plan to become farmers;
5. Linking farming and agricultural land conservation to broader public benefits such as water quality, habitat protection, open space value and food security;
6. Creating specific programs that would support these initiatives, such as targeted funding supports for farmers, farm business plans, and flood and surface water management.

• Developing an outreach and education program about the Regional Food Policy Council and the current conditions in the regional food system, and working with members of the RFPC to carry these messages to policy makers around the region.

The RFPC Steering Committee will take develop a more specific plan of action based on these areas, and the RFPC will review and adopt this at our March 9 meeting.

City of Seattle Seal

During my four years as President, I led the Council through a priority setting exercise each year, designed to identify the core issues to focus on for the year.  Council President Clark plans to continue this plan.  In 2011, Councilmembers identified 17 priorities.  Here’s a report on how I think we did, from one to four asterixes:

Build a livable city for our future

ECONOMIC RECOVERY   Advance strategies to foster economic development and promote new jobs, including considering a ‘one-stop’ permitting system, ensuring that regulations are data-driven and goal oriented, expanding workforce training, and developing new marketing tools for businesses.  ***  We delivered on all of these and more, and Seattle is now leading the way out of the recession, but we still have a lot of work to do to reach full recovery.

DEVELOPMENT   Adopt legislation making Yesler Terrace replacement a model for sustainable mixed income communities, retaining and seeking to increase low-income housing units.  Change zoning and land use rules in the South Downtown Neighborhoods and transit communities to promote more housing, smarter design, business success, housing affordability, and neighborhood sustainability ** Progress on Yesler and transit communities continues, but has been slower than expected; changes in South Downtown were completed.

PARTNERSHIP   Continue to implement the Council’s Seattle for Washington strategy to strengthen Seattle’s relationships on the regional and state level.  **** We have forged new positive relationships to work together on state and regional concerns.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP   Develop specific milestones and steps for Seattle’s carbon neutral goal, update the Climate Action Plan, and add “vehicle miles travelled” reduction targets to the Comprehensive Plan.  Continue implementing the Zero Waste Strategy.  Begin adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. *** Council formally approved Carbon Neutral 2050 goal, and climate work continues to advance, towards completion in 2012.  Plastic bag ban and yellow pages opt-out program were significant steps in zero waste.

LIBRARIES   Work with Seattle Public Library on a proposed voter approved levy to expand library services, strengthen partnerships with Seattle Schools and to help relieve pressure on the General Fund. **** Council adopted resolution setting path for Library Levy in August, 2012.

Foster safe, just and healthy communities for all

SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION   Renew the Families and Education Levy in partnership with Seattle Schools.  Foster a community-wide belief that every child in every school neighborhood can excel and graduate from high school prepared to succeed in college or obtain a career credential of their choice.  **** Families and Ed Levy doubled in size and renewed by 65% of voters.  Progress in improving education system.

PUBLIC SAFETY   Ensure effective neighborhood policing and efficient use of police resources by supporting innovative community safety strategies, adopting the “Gold Standard” for batterer intervention services, and supporting a comprehensive response plan for juvenile sex trafficking.  *** Much progress made on community safety strategies and issues around batterer treatment and juvenile sex trafficking, continued work needed to make neighborhood policing work.  Justice Department report highlights new emphasis needed to tackle issues of police accountability and procedures.

REINVENTING NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES   Develop a new operations model for Community Centers.  Restructure the Neighborhood District Coordinator system and associated civic engagement efforts.  ****/** Operations model for Community Centers developed and implemented.  Slower progress on Department of Neighborhoods, will be 2012 task.

RACE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND OPEN GOVERNMENT   Promote race and social equity in city government work.  Implement strategies to support education and job readiness, equal access to technology, and other community-based approaches.  Implement new technology measures for increased citizen access through the public engagement portal and constituent relations management system.  **** Implementation of Race and Social Justice Initiative, creation of new Refugee and Immigrant Office, new technology initiatives, including Great Student Initiative to provide computers for students.

LOCAL FOOD ACTION INITIATIVE   Emphasize rural-urban connections and economic development through encouraging local food production and food-related businesses.  Work with community partners to develop opportunities for increasing healthy food production, distribution, and marketing.  **** Great combination of community action and City support, long list of accomplishments.

HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE    Implement the Housing Levy to encourage long term affordability and support housing for the disabled and homeless communities.  Support emergency, transitional, and permanent housing for survivors of domestic violence.  *** Housing levy continues to be effective, work is underway on addressing unmet needs for housing for domestic violence survivors.

Invest public resources fairly and effectively

BUDGET   Adopt a sustainable 2012 budget that invests in public safety and human services.  Expand partnerships with the City’s unions and employees to deliver services to the public in cost effective ways while respecting the skills and commitment of the City’s work force.  Work on potential changes to the retirement system, better management of health care costs, and increase efficiency of personnel functions.  Develop strategies to fund parks operation and maintenance.  **** Excellent budget work, partnership with unions and employees, significant steps in address efficiency measures.  Initial steps on Parks successful.

CLEAN ENERGY   Adopt a long-range strategic plan and new financial policies for Seattle City Light to keep focused on conservation and renewable resources for our future while ensuring financial stability and equitable rates.  Continue exploring a smart grid and broadband services.  *** Much progress was made on these issues, continued work is required.

SR 99 REPLACEMENT PROJECT   Consider legislation approving agreements with the State to advance the project on schedule while fully protecting Seattle’s interests.  Work to secure increased transit funding, protection for portal neighborhoods, and the foundation for the new waterfront.  Place a funding plan for the seawall and waterfront on the ballot. ****/***/*  Four stars for completing agreement with the State and moving forward with the tunnel.  Three stars for continued progress on the waterfront and seawall design, and advocacy on transit funding.  One star for not having reached the point where we can move forward with a funding plan for the seawall and waterfront (we were overly optimistic about the pace at which this can progress).

SR 520   Continue to advance Seattle’s interests in protecting the Arboretum and our neighborhoods, securing a full funding plan, increasing transit funding and access, and moving the project forward.  *** Success in continuing to advance Seattle’s interests and negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the state, and in advocating for funding and transit, but there is still a big funding gap that the State has to figure out.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN   Determine options for funding Seattle’s transportation system in conjunction with Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee III, and expand transportation choices and sustainable funding sources for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.  Develop a strategic approach for major capital projects, including the Seawall, the North Precinct, the City’s elements of the SR 99 Replacement program, and initiating strategic capital planning for Parks and the Seattle Center.  * While there continues to be some progress, voters turned down the VLF proposal, and we have not put a strategic capital plan together.

TRANSIT   Work with the County and State to Identify funding resources to support fairly allocated bus service connecting Seattle neighborhoods and linking Seattle to job centers in other parts of King County.  Support the construction of the First Hill Streetcar, progress on Sound Transit lines, and continuation and expansion of electric trolley buses.  **** This is a great example of the success of our outreach work, as the County changed its transit allocation formula and secured a short-term funding source from the State.  First Hill Streetcar is moving forward, and East Link is now ready for final design.

Salish Sea

Seattle is blessed by hosting a wide range of creative and committed individuals and groups who are willing to push the envelope of what can be done to create a more sustainable City.  Think carrying freight on sailing ships is no longer practical?  Meet Ballard’s Salish Sea Trading Cooperative.

The Salish Sea Trading Cooperative relies on wind to deliver locally produced goods by sailboat, traveling between Seattle, Port Townsend and other points around Puget Sound with cargoes that range from fresh produce from Dharma Ridge Farm in the Olympic Peninsula for their associated Community Supported Agriculture baskets to Theo’s Chocolate for the Port Townsend Food Cooperative, and even a cargo of cedar delivered across the Sound to Seattle in November.  Some of the products they deliver here are distributed by bicycle, further reinforcing their low-impact model!

The Cooperative is a non-profit, and the financial model is challenging.  But, relying on existing boats and lots of volunteer energy, they are pioneers of a new model for restoring traditional sustainable models, using modern appropriate technology.  Check out their website at:

http://www.salishseatrading.com/

As they note in their most recent newsletter, the United Nations has designated 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives.  Seattle is home to a wide range of successful cooperative enterprises, including many prominent ones like Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI), Group Health, and Puget Consumers Co-op (PCC).  There are many smaller enterprises, like our strong network of Credit Unions and Central Co-op (Madison Market), and a whole range of new cooperative ideas that are being developed, like Salish Sea.  Seattle’s cooperative movement is well-grounded in Seattle’s values of environmental stewardship and sustainable development.  Celebrate the International Year of Cooperatives by checking out some of them and getting involved!

Seattle City Councilmembers praise Governor Gregoire for signing marriage equality bill
Council's marriage equality resolution supports state legislative efforts

SEATTLE –Seattle City Councilmembers today recognized the signing of Senate Bill 6239, concerning civil marriage and domestic partnerships, as Washington state joins other states in support of marriage equality.

January 23, Councilmembers unanimously approved Resolution 31356 declaring full support of state-wide marriage equality, urging the Washington State Legislature to swiftly pass this legislation.

Council President Sally J. Clark said, "I'd like to recognize and thank Gov. Chris Gregoire, Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen, and all the legislators who took this historic step toward equality.  The unprecedented level of community advocacy has been inspiring."

"This achievement is the result of decades of tenacious and courageous work by people throughout Washington," stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen.  "I especially want to thank Sen. Ed Murray who has worked tirelessly for fairness and equality for the passage of this landmark law."

Councilmember Sally Bagshaw added, "This issue is about fairness. I am inspired by the thoughtful debate that took place amongst our leaders in Olympia, thrilled to see this day come and proud of our state."

"I thank the Governor and the state Legislature for showing strong leadership on marriage equality," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "This effort has taken great patience and perseverance and today's signing is worthy of celebration."

"I applaud Governor Gregoire and the Legislature for doing the right thing for Washington's residents," said Councilmember Richard Conlin. "As a licensed officiant, I look forward to the opportunity to celebrate and perform wedding ceremonies as soon as this legislation takes effect and I can legally sign the papers."

"I'm thrilled state legislators and the Governor have made marriage equality the law of the land," stated Councilmember Jean Godden. "It's high time we lived in a state that recognizes everyone's equal rights."

"As an advocate for fairness, I am incredibly proud of our Washington State Senate, House of Representatives, and Gov. Gregoire on fighting for marriage equality in our state," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "Families come in many forms and all families in our city and state should enjoy equal rights and opportunities. I am overcome with pride that Washington state will continue to build momentum towards marriage equality in the United States, by becoming the 7th state to recognize gay marriage. We all benefit from an environment that promotes equality."

Councilmember Nick Licata stated, "As a longtime supporter of marriage equality,  I'm thrilled today that our state Legislature and Governor agree that though Washington's ‘Everything but marriage' law served its purpose for a time, it fell far short of what's right and fair." 

"This historic step makes me proud to be a Washingtonian. I cannot wait to attend my first official gay wedding and celebrate with friends and family who have been left out of this important institution for too long," stated Councilmember Mike O'Brien.

In February 1997, the City of Seattle adopted Resolution 29535 opposing discrimination against same-sex couples in Washington State and supporting legal recognition of civil marriages for same-sex couples. Supporting marriage equality is also in the City of Seattle's 2012 state legislative agenda.

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

Seattle has a mission to become more sustainable, and we cannot attain that goal unless we work with our business community.  Fortunately, much of that community is in harmony with Seattle’s sustainability values, and we have forged many good partnerships.  We offer so many great services to help businesses, in fact, that it has become difficult to identify them and figure out how to use them.  And when you apply for a permit, you are not likely to be told much about them.

To make these work better, in 2010 my office authored a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI), which was adopted unanimously by the City Council, asking departments to identify opportunities to coordinate, integrate, and improve access to the City’s array of environmental sustainability services.  We’ve now received the report, and have charged the Departments with taking action steps to:

• Improve effectiveness by developing a simple, high-functioning web-based portal, cross-training program staff in the different Departments, establishing common metrics for program tracking and evaluation, and addressing any logistical or legal issues that are potential obstacles to interdepartmental cooperation;
• Improve efficiency by integrating and coordinating outreach, beginning with a pilot outreach project to business sectors targeted by multiple programs.
• Ensure the best economic development benefits by doing coordinated market research to identify gaps in service and unmet needs.

By taking these actions, we can simultaneously advance our environmental goals and our economic development goals – the new paradigm that requires both of these to be met in order to become a more sustainable City.

The research found that six different City entities (Planning and Development, Economic Development, Sustainability and Environment, City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, and Transportation) offered 25 different services to businesses, aimed at:

• Improving conservation and energy efficiency;
• Achieving better recycling/waste reduction, water conservation, and stormwater management;
• Promoting Green Building; and
• Improving transportation through services like Commute Trip Reduction.

These programs provide technical assistance, assistance complying with regulations, incentives and rebates, information, and recognition for achievements.  While many of them are available to any business, some are targeted to specific types of businesses.

Interviews with business representatives found that rebates and one-on-one assistance was most valuable; that recognition services worked only if there was associated marketing; and that businesses longed for a centralized website that was well-organized and up-do-date.  Business people stated that they had a hard time finding services, but were eager to participate where possible.

The recommendations lay out a path for addressing issues.  The Council will monitor the results of the continued work.  We are confident that Departments can and will do better, and that businesses, the City, our workforce, and the environment will all benefit.

Central Cinema was actually founded in 2005, and it has become a wonderful asset to the community.  Now, unfortunately, it has to petition the Liquor Control Board to amend WAC 314-02-027, relating to spirits, beer, and wine in dinner theater venues.  Here’s what City officials wrote in support of Central Cinema:

“Until recently, the area…  (around 21^st and Union)… – and particularly the nearby intersection of 23^rd and Union – was known as an open-air drug market, and experienced very high levels of crime.  The City’s “Safer Union” project, with help from many local business owners and residents, has worked to create a greater sense of safety and community in the Union Street corridor.  Central Cinema has been a tremendous asset in these efforts, serving as a family-friendly destination that draws people to the neighborhood and brings neighbors together.  The Cinema offers casual dining together with films that are often family-oriented – including a weekly “cartoon happy hour” and “sing-along” movies – and serves as host for a diverse range of other community events.

Although it has operated for over six years without incident, the Central Cinema was recently notified that it may be in violation of WAC 314-02-027.  As adopted in 2010, this rule authorizes a restaurant/ spirits beer and wine license for “a cinema with a dinner theater venue,” but only if minors are prohibited “in the individual theater rooms that allow alcohol service and consumption.”  Because Central Cinema operates with a single dining and theater room, strict enforcement of this rule would require the Cinema to substantially change its business model, and likely force it to close. For all of us who are interested in seeing the Union Corridor thrive as a diverse, safe, and family friendly community, this would be a terrible outcome.

While we can appreciate the rationale for WAC 314-02-027 as applied to a typical cinema venue, it makes much less sense when applied to an establishment like the Central Cinema.  The Central Cinema has lighted booths, which meet the restaurant lighting requirements of WAC 314-11-055, and fully allow for checking of identification and enforcement of all liquor rules.  Food and drinks are delivered by table servers, who are constantly working and monitoring the room.  The Central Cinema thus poses no more threat to minors than many other restaurants and dinner theaters where families are allowed.  In fact, we understand that if the Central Cinema were offering live music, or large TV screens, or no entertainment, instead of movies, it would be fully lawful; it is simply the presence of the movie screen that invokes the prohibition of WAC 314-02-027.  We do not imagine this was the intended purpose of the rule.

We respectfully request that the Board initiate a rule-making to consider amendments to WAC 314-02-027, and stay further enforcement of the rule while the rule-making is pending.  It seems likely that with minor modifications, the rule could serve its intended purpose and still allow family-oriented establishments such as the Central Cinema to operate.   We appreciate your attention to this matter.”

Seattle City Council establishes Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs
Coordinated efforts will provide easier to use services to immigrant and refugee communities

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today approved 7-0 Council Bill 117394 establishing the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs as an executive department. By creating one location for immigrant and refugee services, this office will coordinate the City's efforts in reaching and providing services to immigrant and refugee communities.

"The City of Seattle has better invested in the way we serve all residents – including immigrants and refugees," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, chair of the committee that will oversee the new Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. "This new office will improve how the City integrates new immigrants and refugees into the civic life of Seattle, as well as help all residents benefit from the diversity of immigrant and refugee cultures. It will be mutually beneficial to all."

The bill recognizes Seattle is home to many immigrant and refugee communities and that language and cultural barriers can compromise equal access to government services and programs. These barriers combined with the complex nature of issues that impact immigrant and refugee communities, resulted in this Council action to strengthen the relationship between government and these communities.

"Immigrant and refugee communities contribute to the vitality of Seattle in countless ways, but they can also have trouble accessing city services," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "The Council created this office because we saw the need to provide a more coordinated welcome to these individuals and families."

"The Immigrant and Refugee Commission is excited about the new City of Seattle's Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.  Seattle's Immigrants and refugees have quickly become part of the city's economic life, from the bustling International District downtown to the polyglot scene that is the South East, the most diverse zip code in the nation," said co-chair Devon Abdallah. "What a great way to show commitment to continue to advocate for immigrant and refugees," said co-chair Jesus Rodriguez.  "We are looking forward to having an office coordinating efforts across City departments and a central point of contact for individuals requiring City assistance."

"I am thrilled that we were able to create an office that will reach out to newcomers and serve as a one-stop place to access information and services," stated Councilmember Jean Godden.

"The Office will make city government more accessible and responsive to Seattle's immigrant and refugee communities, which now represent 17 percent of the City's population," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien. "I look forward to working with the new office to better include these communities, our newest residents, in our civic process and life."

"OneAmerica applauds the Council's leadership in creating this office which will help streamline access to services and create innovative ways to recognize and encourage immigrant and refugee communities to participate in city life. The office also provides a clear signal that city government values the input and contribution made by immigrant communities," said OneAmerica Executive Director, Pramila Jayapal.

The bill also renames the Immigrant and Refugee Advisory Board to the Seattle Immigrant and Refugee Commission.  The Seattle City Council created the Immigrant and Refugee Advisory Board and developed an Immigrant and Refugee Action Plan in 2007. The Immigrant and Refugee Commission will work with the City's Race and Social Justice Initiative to integrate principles of social justice and ensure consistency with the Race and Social Justice Initiative.

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.

Arborist sought for Seattle's Urban Forestry Commission

SEATTLE – The Seattle City Council is looking for a new Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) member to fill the Arborist role in Position # 5. The term would start upon selection and extend through December 1, 2014.

To be considered, applicants must have board certification as a Master Arborist or Municipal Specialist from the International Society of Arboriculture; or certification by the American Society of Consulting Arborists; or background and experience in Tree Risk Assessment from a recognized credential agency or a professional organization. 

This position is appointed by City Council for a renewable, three-year term. The nine-member UFC consists of a wildlife biologist; an urban ecologist; a representative of a local, state or federal natural resource agency or an accredited university; a hydrologist; a certified arborist; a representative of a non-profit or non-governmental organization; a representative of the development community or a representative from a non-city utility; and an economist, financial analyst, or Washington State licensed real estate broker.

To be apply, please email your letter of interest and resume to Sandra Pinto de Bader (Sandra.Pinto_de_Bader@seattle.gov). To send a paper submittal, address it to: Sandra Pinto de Bader, Urban Forestry Commission Coordinator, Urban Forestry Commission, Office of Sustainability and Environment, City of Seattle, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2748. PO Box 94729, Seattle, WA 98124-4729. The recruitment process closes on April 13, 2012.

The Urban Forestry Commission was established in 2009, by Ordinance 123052 to advise the Mayor and City Council concerning the establishment of policy and regulations governing the protection, management, and conservation of trees and vegetation in the City of Seattle. Commission meetings are held twice a month on Wednesdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Commission members generally must commit approximately 10 hours per month to Commission business and serve without compensation. Additional information about the Urban Forestry Commission can be found here.

The City of Seattle set the bold goal of achieving 30 percent tree canopy cover by 2037 to increase the environmental, social, and economic benefits trees bring to Seattle residents. The 2007 Seattle Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is a comprehensive strategy for increasing Seattle's tree canopy cover to meet the 30 percent target. The UFMP lays out goals and a broad range of actions to be implemented over time to preserve, maintain, and plant trees as well as restore the public forested areas remaining in the city. More information about Seattle's urban forest program.

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.