In his first state of the city speech, Mayor Mike McGinn Tuesday (Feb 15) spoke frequently about financial concerns as he outlined the key challenges facing he sees facing Seattle. Most strikingly, he tied the financial issues to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which he has opposed in the past.
The mayor outlined priorities around improving opportunities and education for young people; lining up city policies to promote jobs; advancing broadband, fiber-optic infrastructure; and transportation improvements. McGinn said the city seems to be well-positioned financially in comparison to many other large cities, both for the moment and as an economic competitor in the future.
But he said the city faces both a deficit in the range of $50 million for 2011 and a possible need to cut $5 to $10 million in the middle of the year because of falling revenue. And the city, McGinn suggested, can't take anything for granted, including its ability to thrive off such assets as its history of technological innovations, its higher education institutions, and trade through its port.
Early on, he struck an almost wistful note as he referred to the complaints many had about growth during the economic boom, saying, "Now we probably wouldn't mind seeing a new [construction] crane or two go up."
Throughout the address in the City Council Chambers, he connected economics to all of the issues, but none as specifically as he did when talking about state transportation initiatives. He argued again for more transit in the planned reconstruction of the Highway 520 floating bridge and stressed what he said is a risk to Seattle taxpayers of being stuck with costs for a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
While saying that he doesn't support the tunnel, McGinn said he does respect the city council's 9-0 decision to move forward. (Well he might, since he switched his position in the campaign to saying he wouldn't block the tunnel.) But he said he had one remaining issue with the tunnel construction, albeit a deal-breaker. Noting that the legislature has said it will not pay for any cost overruns and plans to stick those costs to "Seattle residents" (not, interestingly the "City of Seattle"), McGinn said ominously, "What we know about mega-projects is that they have cost overruns."
He said the bill for Seattle "could be billions of dollars, billions of dollars that we don't have. So I intend to keep fighting as mayor to say that we should not get those deep-bore tunnel machines going as long as we are at risk of paying the cost overruns."
The statement is likely to be regarded as tantamount to direct opposition to completion of the tunnel. Tunnel supporters think the state language on overruns is unenforceable and essentially meaningless, and not amenable politically to change by the legislature.
Councilmember Tim Burgess took strong exception to the mayor's tunnel statements. McGinn, Burgess said, "is clearly attempting to create confusion and fear." Burgess said the mayor could easily have confined himself to saying he would "make sure that, as everyone agrees, there are no obligations for the city."
Council President Richard Conlin was guarded in his comments. He said McGinn's tunnel remarks "seemed pretty rhetorical." But Conlin said he was glad that the mayor seemed to talk about the replacement of the Seattle waterfront seawall as part of the viaduct replacement project, which is how the council has viewed it.
Tom Rasmussen, chair of the council's transportation committee, took a third tack on the tunnel, saying that McGinn repeated his earlier position, which flies in the face of state opposition to making any explicit changes to the cost overrun language. "It seems like that is something he wants to work out with the state, and all I say say is, good luck with that," Rasmussen said, noting that the council, like the state, has no interest in pursuing the issue.
Overall, Conlin said, the speech gave a good grasp of the issues facing the city but he said he kept waiting for specific legislative approaches the mayor might take. Burgess, likewise, praised the "conversational tone" and the listing of challenges, adding that McGinn is too new to the job to be expected to have many specific solutions.
Conlin said that, in some ways, McGinn's lack of specifics was the direct opposite of how onetime Mayor Paul Schell would lay out numerous proposals at once. "Somewhere in between is where we are looking to land," Conlin said. The council will lay out its own 2010 priorities on Monday.
Other highlights of McGinn's speech included:
- On broadband, McGinn said, opposition from the private sector to any municipal-led projects is to be expected, but said cities have to make sure their citizens have the Internet connections to be competitive economically.
- The city will cut its budget, and "then we may have to look at" revenue options for essential services.
- The city has excellent plans for biking and pedestrian improvements but needs to figure out how to pay for them. McGinn said he and new the city's new transportation boss, Peter Hahn, are outlining ideas around a theme that includes transit connections, tentatively called "walk, bike, ride."
Rasmussen praised the last idea and said that he has heard from city neighborhoods about "sidewalks, sidewalks, sidewalks" and a desire to be able to walk to transit.
At the opening of the speech, McGinn talked about "the great work" that city employees had been doing over the past year. That seemed to suggest the mayor, who offended many city workers with immediate talk of reducing senior positions, wanted to offer an olive branch. But he then avoided any specifics, saying that examples of the accomplishments would be posted electronically.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email






Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 2:17 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm one of those folks who was greatly disappointed when McGinn made his tunnel u-turn. Now at least he's talking about the "deal-breaker" issue, as Joe puts it, of planning for cost overruns. Of course there are going to be enormous overruns on this project -- no one has ever done one like it in budget, and certainly not here in the Northwest. Seems like a fair question, just who's going to pay for it. Or more accurately, what other government services are going to need to be cut to pay the bills after they come in. Or, are we hoping the state supreme court will declare the debt void after the fact like it did a few years back in the WPPSS default fiasco? But even after that, we still had to pay, you know.
Meanwhile, I was in New York recently and noticed, where they used to have their viaduct (called the West Side Highway) that became unsafe, they tore it down and put in a big surface street. I don't hear anyone in New York saying it would have been better to replace the freeway on the West Side, anymore than I hear anyone in San Francisco complaining that they turned the Embarcadero into a big surface street. But I guess we have special circumstances here in Seattle that make our traffic even more of a problem than west-side Manhattan. Anyway, like Crosscut and the papers like to say, time to stop dithering and dig!
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 10:19 a.m. Inappropriate
It's unfortunate that at the same time the mayor supposedly wants to limit or eliminate cost overruns that he is intent on delaying the project with political games. The number one cause of cost overruns is delay, especially so in this advantageous bidding climate, because of inflation.
That is the mayors plan, he has never been respectful of the council's position. He wants cost overruns, is begging for them and trying to cause them because he knows that is the only way to stop the tunnel.
I think those who assume big projects always equal big overruns are misinformed. But even if there are some overages, they shouldn't be intentionally caused by a reckless mayor's narrow agenda to completely eliminate SR-99 and not replace it.
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 10:28 a.m. Inappropriate
With refreshing candor McGinn admits that Nickels left the city in pretty good shape- and then predicts that, under a McGinn administration, the traditional drivers of Seattle's economy (the port, the universities, and tech industries) might falter. And on the issue of urban finances in a global world, the best he can do is "Hey! Look over there! Big potential cost overrun!"
Apparently McGinn, like most tunnel critics, is unaware that a full quarter of the price tag for the tunnel (not paid by Seattle) is a reserve fund for cost overruns.
All in all, this event seems to have been a brutally honest example of the kind of administration the city can expect to experience.
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 10:54 a.m. Inappropriate
A couple of things about Joe’s piece here warrant comments.
The new AWV replacement tunnel financing plan legislation does not place responsibility for costs above the state’s $2.8 billion spending cap on "Seattle residents". The statutory scheme instead puts a subset of Seattle property owners on the hook for those. Many of those property owners would not be “Seattle residents”. Here, read it for yourselves (RCW 47.01.402(6)(b)):
-----
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.01.402
-----
The statute specifies “property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel” are to be on the hook for amounts in excess of the $2.8 billion. That could include damages costs (God alone knows how many subsurface voids and sinkholes will be created, and what the cost of the damages caused to buildings and the urban infrastructure in downtown Seattle will be).
This is a weird, unattributed assertion: “Tunnel supporters think the state language on overruns is unenforceable and essentially meaningless, and not amenable politically to change by the legislature.” That language on overruns is entirely enforceable, and it has a very particular meaning. Anyone want to try explaining what might be unenforceable about that language? I doubt anyone will take me up on that offer – it’s the same as when you ask the Sound Transit screen names a question about the finances (they pretend they’re stupid, and resort to snarky name-calling).
Here you go Joe (and "serial catowner"), let me explain why that statutory language is perfectly legal. The language about Seattle property owners who benefit from the tunneling project is standard LID language. What the legislature is doing there is authorizing the use of local improvement district assessment revenue for the amounts over $2.8 billion that end up becoming WSDOT’s responsibility. WSDOT would incur those responsibilities via contracts (and pursuant to tort law).
The Port of Seattle can use its existing statutory authority (RCW 53.08.050) and form a LID just by a resolution. No vote of the people would be required. The Port commissioners would draw a line on a map of Seattle, and all the property owners within that line who have increased assessed values (and Lloyd Hara would make sure those increases were BIG!) would be subject to annual LID assessments to cover the WSDOT cost overruns.
By the way, those big annual assessments would be on top of the new annual LID assessments the City is going to be imposing to cover a large chunk of the “Seattle portion of the waterfront/Mercer St. parts” of the overall project.
See – nothing unenforceable about that!
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 11 a.m. Inappropriate
Can somebody, anybody, cite an example where a multi-billion-dollar public works project, a situation where cost-overruns were sloughed off on an unwilling third party? Hell, cite ANY public works project where that was the case.
I know the People In Charge of the AWV tunnel project, and their support crew, want to ignore all this and leave it to the courts to settle later, after loud and noisy and distracting and expensive and protracted legal battle. I admire Mayor McGinn for keeping a focus on this untenable issue.
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 12:50 p.m. Inappropriate
R - how about using the State's law to collect from any professional benefiting from the project, **if** it goes over budget.
As to those who claim caution about overruns is misguided and destructively obstructionist, we have a place for you, according to your own standards.
It's called the gutter, right next to the sidewalk. Be civil now, right?
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 1:04 p.m. Inappropriate
I think what Doug Tooley is trying to say is that he's against the tunnel- and that anyone who disagrees with him should be squashed like a bug.
That may, however, be too literal a reading.
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 1:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Good for McGinn.
Now if the Almighty would just appear to the folks at Discovery Institute and tell them to stop screwing around with a tunnel and refurbish the Viaduct, we’d have a transportation design that works at a price we can afford.
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 1:43 p.m. Inappropriate
I am and always have been against the tunnel--I am and always will be against SR520 A+ Option. My opinons superseded Mayor McGinn's stand on both issues. And anyone who disagrees with me should learn to ride a bike!
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 10:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Ken Shear understands future design and see the old paradigm failing, extremely annoying to motorists of yesteryear.
Loudquak cries Mike not playing fair, hidden agenda. Real shortcomings of Deep-Bore? Quack won't talk about that.
Serial catowner harangs Mike for ineffective leadership after 1 month, nevermind long-range goals that don't happen instantly. I hope Mike stops the Deep-bore, however he can, and soon.
rah! rah! rah! rah! Deep bore bad plan!
Crossrip explains things expeditiously....
I'm on R Beacon Hill's side of town.
Tooley pisses on everyone.
jmrolls still doesn't see the handwriting on the wall: Cars are.. like.. insects... Question: The seawall is fixed first. Why is the study of its construction still incomplete? Tunnelite is far better than Deep-bore and the old elevated noise box putrid stinkhole in asphalt elevated monstrosity.
Tunnelite builds the strongest seawall and the most stable Alaskan Way surface. Rebuild Pioneer Square? Rebuild the Seawall first and make the fill soil most stable with box cut-n-cover. C'mon. Sea rise a'comin...
Posted Wed, Feb 17, 11:12 p.m. Inappropriate
Crossrip makes a good point about the cost-overruns clause, which applies not to the City of Seattle but to "Seattle area taxpayers." He's right that a LID is envisioned. But the state can't just impose an LID; it must be voted on by affected property owners, who would be most unlikely to take on a huge cost. Indeed, there probably will already be an LID to deal with some of the city's obligations such as the waterfront park, so this group will be pretty tapped out.
Posted Thu, Feb 18, 7:39 a.m. Inappropriate
The irony here would be that, as a lawyer, McGinn would know better than anyone just how unenforceable such a poorly written piece of law would be.
Certainly, the Boeing Company never paid for anything in this town if they didn't want to.
Posted Thu, Feb 18, 7:40 a.m. Inappropriate
D.B. - I need to take exception with two things in what you just posted:
1) The statute makes no reference to "taxpayers". No new tax revenue would be used to pay for the amounts WSDOT becomes liable for over $2.8 billion. The revenue source for those excess costs instead would be LID assessments (those are not taxes).
2) It is true the state can't just create a LID. However, the Port of Seattle can, and no vote of the people would be required. The Port of Seattle can use its existing statutory authority (RCW 53.08.050) and form a LID just by a resolution. If you take a look at that statute you will see it allows the Port to create local improvement districts and begin the assessments without any vote. Not all local governments can do that, but the Port can. Those impacted property owners would not have any say.
Posted Thu, Feb 18, 10:34 a.m. Inappropriate
Listen please. Good engineering offers related 'infrustructure' improvement with mega-projects. The Cut/cover rebuilds the seawall at the same time to its fullest possible measure. Throw in most stable Alaskan Way surface as bonus. Bad engineering turns steep 2-lane Mercer Place hill into a thru-corridor for at least 5,000 more cars AND trucks through Lower Queen Anne to access SR99 at Aurora, more traffic from there to I-5. It's unbelievable. The C/c has better exit, ventilation, light and sensible capacity. Good engineers don't ignore 40,000 vehicles added to Alaskan Way. Are you kidding me?
Mayor Mike McGinn will go down in history as among Seattle greatest mayors, right out of the starting gate. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Stop the Big Bore. It's wrong wrong wrong in so many ways. Thank you. And get the seawall rebuild plans done now. Nice weather this week. Teach high school engineering students how to do the darn thing. WSDOT put off what should've been done first to last. my my...
Posted Thu, Feb 18, 4:06 p.m. Inappropriate
I guess when faced with the facts, based on transportation criteria, that a refurbished viaduct is superior to ALL other proposed alternatives for Alaskan Way, the only remaining rebuttal would be: Cars are.. like.. insects...
Dude !