Mercer Island City Council, please slow down

In the May 28 Mercer Island Reporter article, “City officials consider bond for maintenance facility project,” one question posed by a community member asked, “What does a $110 million bond to finance the facility cost Mercer Island taxpayers?” City officials didn’t know! That’s like building a home without understanding what you can afford.

No one argues that the city doesn’t need to replace the maintenance facility, called the “Public Safety and Maintenance Facility Project (PSM Project),” and we applaud the city’s ability to manage operations over the past two years in less-than-ideal conditions!

The city is scheduled to introduce a bond measure to finance the PSM Project with a November 2025 election date at its June 17 meeting (1st reading). A 1st reading sends a message that this project is already a done deal.

We urge voters to tell the council to answer the following questions before any action is taken to schedule a ballot measure by sending an e-mail to Council@MercerIsland.gov and ask our elected leaders to slow down, and engage the voters before acting on this significant financial investment.

The roll out of this plan is not in keeping with the city’s typical project outreach. For example, the city visited 54 elementary classes, received 1,200 student inputs, conducted an open house, posted an online survey and developed a community engagement plan for the $1.5M Dragon Park renovation project. To date, the city has presented to the Rotary Club where a couple dozen Rotarians were present for the PSM project estimated at over $100M. Our initial review of this project senses the public will be very critical of the plan. It’s grandiose and expensive.

What can voters reasonably afford in terms of a property tax increase?

This is the crystal ball question. As currently configured, and using assumptions from the recent school bond proposal, city property taxes will likely increase 45%. (Yes, I’m using the same methodology as used with the recent school bond and the 2018 Prop 1.) Remember, the school district will be asking voters again for an increase in local school property taxes to finance school facilities along with another ask from the city for the city hall replacement. Voters should be wary of any material increase — call it the double-whammy for taxpayers.

Why has the proposed building sizes increased so dramatically over current facilities?

The proposal increases facilities 47% in building size over current facilities (from 50,000 sf to 74,000 sf). Storage increases 200% from 3,900 sf to 11,700 sf. Storage increases by over 300% if looked at from a volume perspective. Is all of that capacity truly needed – or just nice to have? Indeed, a review of similar-sized Puget Sound cities suggests the proposed facilities will greatly exceed what others deem necessary.

Why is there so much excess capacity built?

Workstations and desks increase almost 50% from 63 to an upper limit of 94. What vision of Mercer Island requires this additional head count. Police cruisers increase from 21 to 34? Covered parking for all our vehicles? It’s only appropriate to involve the users of the facility but there has to be some guidelines to limit the “nice to haves.” Need — needs balanced with costs.

Are there other funding sources, besides a property tax increase, the council can consider such as tapping some of the city’s $100 million funds?

Over the years, this has been a big contention of MISS. Since 2018 MISS has pointed out the unnecessary balances carried in our various funds. These balances reflect over taxation. Given the competing projects from the city and the school, the city should tap these fund balances to minimize the tax burden and consequently the affordability of Mercer Island. This approach could save the City and the voters up to $70 million in interest charges. Other cities have used existing REET taxes and utility funds to support the planning, development, and construction of similar facilities.

I believe the community is best served with a robust engagement plan now that a preliminary plan and associated costs have been produced. Allow the community time to understand the financial commitment and need for a facility that is much much larger than what has served the community in the past 50 years.

Mike Cero, Mercer Islanders for Sustainable Spending (MISS)