Urban subsidies

While the legislature is making sure that King County does its job in House Bill 1823 for prosecuting felons, maybe it should think about making sure that the county does its jobs with the right amount of money. The state property tax has two specific portions (one for county or regional government, and one for local government services.) In cities, these two portions of you property taxes are separated out and sent either to the county or to the city. In unincorporated county areas, both go to the county. In those unincorporated areas (of King County,) Rons Sims is in reality both the County Executive and the Mayor. The county provides local roads and police protection (which in the cities are provided by the local city government.) Since most of the urban unincorporated areas (e. g. North Highline/White Center/Boulevard Park) are that way because the local taxes revenues are insufficient to pay for all of the required services so the cities don't want to annex them, King County makes up the shortfall out of the portions of revenues from the county as a whole. This is generally called the urban subsidy and means that residents of the cities are paying for local services for the unincorporated areas.

This is one of the reasons that some Burien residents are not eager to annex portions (especially residential portions that have no sales tax base) of North Highline. The residents of North Highline that are annexed will lower the per capita revenue of Burien. In additon the infrastructure of North Highline is not as well maintained as that in the city of Burien so will take an intra-Burien subsidy to raise its standards for years.

A reason that North Highline residents might like to keep things as they are is that cities have ceratin other taxes that they are allowed to add to their residents' tax bills (e. g. utility taxes) that the county is not allowed to charge the residents of unincorporated county areas. As long as they stay unincorporated, they keep their tax bills lower and keep receiving the urban subsidy (but of course, they have little say in a county government gerrymandered to give Seattle a disproportionate vote.)

What is the answer? There probably isn't one that is desirable for all, but if the state would mandate that the county keep separate budgets for its local government rsponsibilities and its regional responsibilities, at least we might be able to figure out what they are up to.

As an example, I was disheartened to learn that King County has (only) two sets of Emergency Management Plans, one for the residents of unincorporated county and one for county government agencies. They have no plan for what services they plan to offer on a regional basis for all residents of the county, both in and outside of cities.

Make the county do its job(s) - swim pools

Besides the pending new King County requirement for cities to prosecute some felonies (if the people are going to get them prosecuted at all,) King County has in the past foisted other of its responsibilities onto the cities (without, of course, passing on any of the revenues allowed by the state for fulfilling those responsibilities.) I am thinking of the decision several years ago to defund the Forward Thrust Swimming Pools that the county built (with our money) many years ago and then neglected the maintenance of. Now those pools are in sad state of repair which would necessitate huge expenditures to refurbish. Mt. Rainier Pool in Des Moines has for the past several years been funded by several of the local cities and the Highline School District. With the tight budgets we have, we can not really afford this but certainly can not afford the refurbishment of the pool to keep it running safely. Thus the home pool of our local several time state championship swim team will probably close its doors, not only to the swim team but also to the public. The only benefit was to the county executive and the council which balanced their budget on the budgets of the local cities.

Legislature: House Bill 1823

House Bill 1823 One critical problem for all of the cities in King County is Ron Sims's budgetary plan to no longer prosecute some felony cases and leave it to the cities to decide if they want to spend their money prosecuting, providing courts, and providing a public defender for some felony cases. Further if convicted, the cities would have to pay for the housing of convicted felons. Several of the members of the legislature (possibly with help of some smart local officials) have come up with a plan to negate this tactic by requiring the county to reimburse the cities for such prosecution. It might also be the idea of the King County Prosecutor (who would have to cut his empire and staff.) In any case it is a great idea to actually require King County to fulfill its mandate to prosecute felony cases.

It is a sad state of affairs when the legislature has to spend its precious time forcing a recalcitrant county executive to do his job.

RCAA Issues Fact Sheet on 3rd Runway Use

How did the FAA and the Port of Seattle say that the third runway would be used:  The following RCAA Fact SHeet (no. 19) quotes from the official documents.

REGIONAL COMMISSION ON AIRPORT AFFAIRS
19900 4th S.W.
Normandy Park, Washington
98166-4043
Telephone: 206.824.3120
cell phone: 206.3104873
E-mail: rcaa@earthlink.net
www.rcaanews.org


RCAA fact sheet no. 19

SOME RELEVANT MATERIALS ABOUT THE PLANNED USE
 OF THE THIRD RUNWAY AT SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

All materials mentioned below are found in the Final EIS for the third runway (& other Sea-Tac Airport expansion projects). All quotations are from a library copy of the FEIS in the library of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs. Formal title: “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Master Plan Update Development Actions at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (February 1996)”; cited in the form, [volume] FEIS [page number]


1. The [stated] purpose of the third runway was to alleviate arrival delays during certain poor-weather conditions (instrument flight rules) at the Airport.

Here are some representative quotes from the main text of the FEIS:

 “ … primary purpose would be to enable two separate arrival streams to Sea-Tac during poor and good weather” I FEIS I-17

 “ the proposed new parallel runway is needed to address existing poor weather 
 delays.” Response R-3-15, IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-35

 “The fundamental problem addressed by in this FEIS is the aircraft operational delays [sic] caused by the lack of dual approach procedures under certain weather conditions.” Response R-3-21B, IV FEIS (Appendix R) 

2. The use of third runway would be primarily for arrivals; departures would be a very small part of the use.

 “Because the proposed new dependant parallel runway is proposed to reduce poor weather delay, which is primarily arrival related, the runway would be expected to 
 be used primarily for arrivals. About 12.1 percent of arrivals in a south flow would occur on the new runway, with about 2.6 percent of departures.” I FEIS IV.1-1

From IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-44 ---

 Comment R-3-25 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the 
proposed new runway be evaluated as a departure runway instead of as an arrival runway.

 Response: Inefficient airfield operations occur during poor weather conditions … 
  Although a third runway at Sea-Tac would primarily be used for arrivals, it would accommodate a limited number of departures during peak departure periods and other circumstances … usage of this runway for departure is expected to be less than 5 percent 
 of the year … .

From IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-71-2 ---

 Comment R-6-13: A number of commentors are concerned about the usage of the proposed third runway. … 

 Response: … the runway is expected to be used by 3.9% of all departures. … The use of the runway by a large number of departures would, however, defeat the purpose of its proposed construction by reducing its availability for arrivals. … .

 The average annualized daily number of operations projected to use the proposed new parallel runway with a length up to 8,500 feet are [sic] as follows:

  Year   Landings Takeoffs
  2000    80          20
  2010    86          22
  2020    93          24

[The authors of the FEIS assumed that the third runway would be completed & in operation by the year 2000.]

See also IV FEIS, R-10-15
See also II FEIS, App’x C, sec 3 (3) 1 (pp C-18-19) & Table C-20, p.C-48.

* * * * *

NOTE: This Fact Sheet does not include materials from other official sources, which consistently confirm that the third runway’s use would primarily be for arrivals from the north, in poor weather. We are not sure that this fact sheet includes all discussions of this topic in the FEIS. The structure of the FEIS resulted in particular issues being discussed in several different places, without cross-references. The FEIS does not contain a topical index.



© RCAA 2008, 2009
Most recent update: 8 i 09 -- discard earlier versions
I-08-3-03
Fact sheet no. 19 (rev.2)

Meeting Thursday on Runway Noise

The meeting on third-runway noise that was scheduled for 18 December but was cancelled because of heavy snowfall has been re-scheduled for Thursday, 8 January 2009. The official agenda follows, with directions to the meeting place following the agenda.

FINAL HIGHLINE FORUM & PORT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AGENDA
January 8, 2009 – Thursday
Highline Forum: 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Port of Seattle Public Comment Period: 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm
 
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Airport Conference Center, Mezzanine Level
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
2:00 pm Welcome & Introduction of Topic Co-chairs
 
Meeting Topic: The Highline Forum will discuss the use of the third runway since its opening. In particular, the Highline Forum will address public complaints that the runway is not being used as promised. 
 
· Data depicting how the runway has operated to date Mark Reis, POS
 
· EIS assumptions for predicting use and impacts Mark Reis, POS
 
· Current usage of runway Mark Reis, POS
 
2:30 pm Questions & Answers Highline Forum

3:00 pm Forum Adjourns & Opening of Port Public Comment Period  

4:00 pm Port Public Comment Period Ends

---------------------------------------

Parking & directions to meeting place (Airport Conference Center)

Park in the Airport Garage, in the daily-parking section (floors 5-8) at the south end of the garage near the yellow or green elevators (rows N-U). Take the elevator to the fourth floor and walk across the skybridge #1, between the yellow elevator bank and the green elevator bank, to the Main Terminal. Take the escalator or elevator up to the ticketing level. Then take the stairs or elevator to the Mezzanine Level (these are directly behind the international and Hawaiian Airlines ticket counters). Enter the reception area though the double glass doors for the Aviation Division Offices. The receptionist will direct you to the right conference room. It is expected that the Airport will follow its usual practice of validating your parking.