Clyde Hill Weeks in Review
Utility rate hikes; a balanced and budgeted deficit, again; stormwater, election, and city hiring updates and a public hearing on (unfair) policies
The good news for you is that this issue covers a couple of weeks of news. I was out of town and mostly offline helping family with a health issue, delaying the newsletter until now. Apologies! Now onto the news:
Utility rate hikes for solid waste
The 2022 Budget: balanced with a deficit, again
Stormwater
Public hearing on (unfair) policies
Solid Waste Rates Increase by 11%
The new solid waste contract has “a one-time spike in rates of 11%,” according to the City’s weekly update (back on 17 Sep).
“There will be annual [rate] increases of 3%” beginning in 2023 from Republic Services. The previous contract with them “artificially held down rate increases related to the decline in value of recycling products for resale by Republic.”
The point here, I think, is that the costs involved in running a city, much less living in one, keep going up.
The 2022 Budget Update
The short version is that the City is on track to deliver a budget very similar to last year’s, including the deficit part: spending exceeds the City’s revenue.
Here is a “big picture” snapshot from the slide deck from the most recent Budget Advisory Committee meeting (28 Sep, link) — notice that expenditures are more than revenues:
Here’s a snapshot of this year’s (2021) Year End (YE) estimate; the operating deficit is about the same:
Both of these budgets are balanced — by the City’s reserve funds. Everyone involved from the City’s side (professional staff and elected officials) knows and understands this. For the 2021 Year End estimate, the next few rows show that the Beginning Fund Balance (or funds the City started the year with) covers the deficit:
“Not good fiscal stewardship in the long run”
As a City official said during the meeting, balancing the budget using reserves this way is “Not good fiscal stewardship in the long run.”
The core of the problem is that expenses will continue to grow faster than revenues. The City can raise taxes by 1% a year. City employee salaries, and many contracts, are linked to the consumer price index, which has consistently been more than 1% for some time. While there are other expenses and other revenue sources, this gap is a good proxy for the larger problem and its nuances. (You can read more detail in a previous newsletter, here.)
So what do we do?
First, clearer communications from the City would help residents. As I’ve met with residents over the last few months, they’re surprised at this situation.
Related, the City could be much more clear about the budget as plan and the budget as spending authority. Revising the budget during the year involves a tedious process. One approach to avoid that work is to authorize spending that is not planned in the event that that spending becomes a good idea.
Specifically, during the meeting, City staff was clear that it is not the City’s plan to spend the $4.3m shown in the 2022 Draft Budget under Projects Fund Expenditures. That number is in the budget to give the City authority to spend those funds.
As an example, the current Projects budget includes almost $1m toward the purchase of land next to City Hall. Mike Foley, a member of the Budget Advisory Committee, called that budget out and asked if the City was doing or planning to do any of that. The short answer is no; the longer answer involves the Facility Master Plan. Either way: determining how the City performed versus plan becomes harder because this part of the budget isn’t the plan.
Ultimately, the City will need to increase revenue or reduce service levels. I’ll write more about that conversation in the next newsletter.
Any other good news about budget?
Yes! It is impressive that in the face of challenges (lots of City employee turnover, short-staffed, during a pandemic), the City kept its schedule and met deadlines for this budget plan. Also, the City won an award for its budget work:
The City also secured ~$1m in ARPA (“American Rescue Plan Act of 2021”) funding. City’s have some restrictions in what they can use this funding for (see slide below); this is potential good news for the ongoing stormwater problem covered in previous newsletters (link):
17th Street Stormwater Update
The latest update, according to residents, is mixed. The good news is that City contractors have performed a temporary fix, extracting “plenty of rocks and roots but not all.” There has been no flooding yet, even after recent heavy rains.
The other news is that the City has not yet committed to fixing the problem.
For context, several homeowners around 17th Street have had a stormwater drainage situation for about a year. Here’s video from a previous newsletter:
The City initially said it would perform the repairs as budgeted, then reversed itself and informed the homeowners it was their responsibility, and then, after some public scrutiny, started investigating the repairs.
What’s not clear yet is why. There’s no doubt about the problem, the City has money in the current budget, and there’s additional possible funding via ARPA funds (see budget, above).
The discussion at City meetings and the budget meeting is that this is a top priority for the new Director of Public Works who will be starting soon.
Public Hearing on City Policy: The Do What You Say You Will Do Challenge, Part 2
Do you have feedback about City policies?
Some examples of issues I’ve heard from residents include the enforcement of the noise ordinance, trees and views, crosswalk and stormwater maintenance, and the RV and boat policy (that appears unenforceable — see previous newsletter here).
The City Council is responsible for setting City policy and providing oversight of the administration of that policy. The Mayor and City staff are responsible for execution and administration of policy.
The next City Council meeting on October 12th has a planned public hearing so that residents who have concerns about specific city policies can share them directly with the City Council.
Thanks again for reading —
Dean