1.  A Seattle firm that is already suing the city on behalf of developers over an existing developer fee program (they lost round one in that case) sent a letter to the city council and City Attorney Pete Holmes on September 19 raising legal questions about a new development fee the council is considering.

Called a "linkage fee," the new plan would charge developers a fee per square foot on projects in development hubs all over the city. 

The law firm, McCullough Hill Leary, isn't raising legal red flags about the "linkage fee" itself. Rather, they're challenging council member Mike O'Brien's intent to hold a closed-door executive session about the "linkage fee"; O'Brien is sponsoring the bill.

"Meeting behind closed doors in an executive session--is more than a little concerning, it is against the law."

"We are writing to express concern at the City Council's statement ... that the legal basis for Councilmember O'Brien's proposed 'linkage fee' should be discussed behind closed doors in executive session," McCullough Hill Leary attorney Jessica Clawson wrote.  

Clawson is following up on a tense exchange between council member Tom Rasmussen and O'Brien (and the consultant who devised the "linkage fee" program, Rick Jacobus) that took place at last week's committee presentation about the proposal.

Rasmussen: "The first question we usually have to ask is 'do we have the authority to do this?' We usually talk to the City Attorney about this. Does the city have the authority? Is it legal for Seattle or any other city in the state of Washington to do so?"

Jacobus: "Yeah. I'm going to just refer you to the law department for that question."

Rasmussen: "Oh? Ok. Well. That's ... that's pretty fundamental." 

O'Brien: "Council member Rasmussen, we're working on scheduling an executive session to talk about that."

Rasmussen: "I just wanted clarity on that. So, you've already requested a City Attorney opinion as to whether this is permitted?" 

O'Brien: "We've had multiple discussions. I'm pursuing this because we believe this is a legitimate path to go down. But we can hear more specifics from them." 

Seizing on that exchange, Clawson wrote: "The Council's refusal to publicly discuss or cite the legal authority that permits the City Council to enact a linkage fee--in favor of meeting behind closed doors in an executive session--is more than a little concerning, it is against the law. Publicly disclosing the legal basis for linkage fee is vastly different than seeking legal advice from your attorney. There is no doubt that it is simpler to discuss in private for the purpose of political expediency, but the Open Public Meetings Act requires much more."

O'Brien staffer Esther Handy tells Fizz: "Mike has asked the Law Department to respond to the McCullough Hill Leary letter. It is very routine for Councilmembers to get legal advice from the Law Department in executive session. McCullough Hill Leary is currently suing the city over the existing [Incentive Zoning] program on behalf of several downtown developers, so they are particularly hostile to this ... idea."

Hostile developers or not, the question of whether the public has the right to know if the action the council is considering is authorized by state law seems pretty basic. We asked the law department about O'Brien's intent to go behind closed doors. 

Kimberly Mills, communications director for City Attorney Pete Holmes, would say only that "We're confident we're on the right side of the law," adding that the city attorney's office had every right to sit down privately with the council: "Our attorneys give advice to City clients only." 

O'Brien's office has asked the Holmes' office to provide a response to McCullough Hill Leary.  

2. We'll be watching socialist city council member Kshama Sawant's energy committee this morning, if only because classes start at UW today and—feeling nostalgic for our student days—we think a lecture on Hegel, Marx,  dialectical materialism, and alienation sounds enlightening.

"Working people already face substantial economic hardship because they are paid less in wages than the value of their work."

Check out the Marxist oratory Sawant has scripted into her bill: "WHEREAS, on average, around the world and throughout history, working people already face substantial economic hardship because they are paid less in wages than the value of their work;"  

As her fiery presentation, with its talk of "classes" of ratepayers and charts comparing the average rates paid by residential customers and "big business," makes clear, Sawant believes ordinary ratepayers pay too much for electricity while corporations get breaks on their electric bills.

After several other more-down-to-earth "WHEREAS" statements—"WHEREAS, in 2013 Seattle apartment rents rose higher than anywhere in the nation;" and "WHEREAS, Seattle is becoming an increasingly unaffordable city for poor and working people;" and "WHEREAS, the 2015-2020 strategic plan of Seattle Public Utilities also projects significant rate increases each of the next 6 years;" and "WHEREAS, the cost allocation model the City of Seattle uses to design electricity rates across classes leads to residential Seattle City Light customers being charged significantly more for electricity on average than high capacity customers;"—Sawant's legislation sets out to lower rates for non-business City Light customers.  

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THAT:

During the first quarter of 2015, the Seattle City Council intends to review Seattle City Light's customer class design and cost allocation among those classes with a view to lowering the costs to Seattle City Light's non-business customers beginning in 2016. The review will include consideration of merging the residential and general service classes for all customers within the City of Seattle.

Sawant has been hinting that she wants to equalize rates across different user classes since practically her first week in office; back in January, she criticized a proposed City Light rate surcharge, and has repeatedly argued that rate increases should fall more heavily on large businesses rather than working people.

3.  Supporters of the union-backed alternative to the city's own preschool funding measure have been recommending that local Democratic Districts stay neutral in the standoff by endorsing neither measure. (The union measure mandating training and higher wages for preschool teachers is unfunded; in contrast, the city's pays for subsidized preshcool slots.) 

The unions got their way last night. In a win the union measure, Prop. 1A, (if you believe, in fact, that they really don't want a pro-endorsement and aren't simply settling for a neutral position because a 'Yes' vote is out of reach), the King County Democrats failed to endorse the city's measure, Prop. 1B. 

The city's Prop 1B campaign, which won a surprise big-deal endorsement from the King County Labor Council (the KCLC also rejected a bid by the union's for an affirmative endorsement), is looking for endorsements from the city's Democratic Legislative Districts and have got them so far from the 43rd (Capitol Hill, the University District) and the 34th (West Seattle).  

The 37th (Southeast Seattle), the 36th (Ballard Queen Anne), the 11th (parts of South Seattle), and the 32nd (a sliver of North Seattle) have all voted against endorsing Prop 1B. 

The 46th (North Seattle) is taking up the measure later this week.