On Monday the City Council will vote to approve a resolution that will say the Council intends, in the future, to authorize the city-state agreements necessary to construct a deep bore tunnel.

Friends of Seattle has proposed two amendments (see below) which would affirm the people's power of referendum and would put in writing--for the first time--the Council's belief that the cost overruns provision of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is legally unenforceable.

Proposed Amendment - People's Power of Referendum

The Council should allay public fears that the Council plans to find a loophole to avoid the referendum power. Our proposed amendment would reassure the public that Council is acting in good faith and respects the people's ultimate authority to legislate. If Council says no to our proposed amendment, then the question becomes, "Why?" A refusal to adopt it would suggest that the Council does in fact intend to find a way around a referendum.

Proposed Text: "With this Resolution, the City Council does not intend to abridge the people's power to subject city ordinances to a public referendum. Upon the Council's authorization of the agreements attached as Attachments 1, 2 and 3 to this Resolution, the Council recognizes that the people may subject the Council's authorization of the agreements to a referendum, as provided in the City Charter."

Proposed Amendment - Cost Overruns

The resolution says city policy is that Seattle is not liable for cost overruns. However, we think state law is what matters, not city policy. Many councilmembers have joined the City Attorney in saying that the cost overruns provision of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is not enforceable. If the Council really believe that the cost overruns provision is legally meaningless, the Council should put it in writing. We have lingering doubts about it, of course. But the city would be better off going on the record. If the Council demurs, our question, given that the above amendment is consistent with their position, again is "Why?"

Proposed Text: "RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) provides that any costs for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project 'in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.' The City Council believes that this portion of RCW 47.01.402(6)(b) is legally unenforceable, and the State therefore does not presently have the legal authority to levy a tax or special assessment on Seattle area property owners for any cost overruns."

We sent the below letter via email to the City Council regarding the commuter tax. The Council plans to vote on the cut on Thursday, November 12 or Friday, November 13.

Dear Councilmembers,

I am writing to urge you to keep the commuter tax (Employee Hours Tax) and not repeal it during your budget votes on Thursday and Friday. The Council’s concern for Seattle’s businesses is admirable, but this is the wrong solution to the problem -- at $91 per year for the average business, the cut will offer little succor to struggling businesses. Meanwhile, the 20-year Bridging the Gap infrastructure-building program would be robbed of $100 million.

That fiscal hit, together with the city’s likely need to allocate new commercial parking tax revenue and new vehicle fees to the deep-bore tunnel, means the city’s vaunted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans would become empty gestures. For the foreseeable future, too little funding would be available for sidewalks, bike lanes, and other such improvements. Now is time to make good on the Council’s commitments to build a walkable, bike-friendly, sustainable city. Keep the commuter tax.

If you do choose to cut it, I suggest two amendments to your plans. First, merely suspend the tax and reinstate it in two years when the economy will improve. Second, direct council central staff to prepare a report on the cut’s economic effect, with the report due to the Council in one year. The report should focus on the number of jobs and the amount of economic growth created directly by the cut. That way, the Council will accumulate actual evidence whether tax cutting is sound economic policy.

But the Council should not cut the commuter tax, because the economics tilt in favor of retaining it. Interest rates on municipal bonds are very low, and contractors are submitting low bids for city projects. By borrowing money now against future tax revenue, the city can get the most for the taxpayers’ money while giving the local economy a boost, especially in the beleaguered construction industry. Think of all the new construction projects and new living-wage jobs that will result.

Keeping the commuter tax will create more jobs, allow the city to build when its buying power is greatest, and move the city towards achieving its progressive transportation goals.

Sincerely,

Gary Manca
President, Friends of Seattle
 

Councilmember Sally Clark, writing in the July edition of her "Seattle View" newsletter (the bolding added by us):

If you're overwhelmed reading stories about the down economy, join the club. Budget forecasts look grim for this autumn. Employers large and small continue to shed costs – like workers.  It's disheartening to see employers in our neighborhood business districts close up shop, both because of what that means to sidewalk energy, but also for all of the employees who no longer have income or health coverage.

Earlier this year City Council reviewed ways we can help lessen the impact of the recession and possibly speed recovery. Repeal of the Employee Hours Tax (sometimes known as the "head tax") was one of many ideas listed that could help Seattle businesses. To comply with the EHT, passed in 2006 as part of the Bridging the Gap transportation funding strategy, employers pay $25 for every employee who regularly drives a single occupancy vehicle for their commute. They pay zero on employees who bike, walk or carpool.

[read the rest below the jump]