Thoughts on future maintenance facility in Mercer Island
Our community has spoken loudly this year that more measured capital spending is needed.
As the leader of Mercer Islanders for Sustainable Spending (MISS), and a proponent of reasonable and effective spending, let me offer what we are hearing from the community about the two recent bond proposition defeats. Hopefully, you are hearing the same things.
First, congratulations to Lisa Anderl and Julie Hsieh. The new council will have a nice mix of experience and new enthusiasm. Additionally, I was proud of how the pro and con campaigns and the community conducted themselves. Our community is stronger and more informed from the thorough vetting by both sides. I think that’s what it’s all about.
It’s now time for the council to put a new plan together.
At no time during the campaign did MISS suggest a new maintenance facility was not needed. Our campaign was always against the expense, size and financing of the facility.
The community has sent a clear message that a 40% tax increase in the respective tax category is too much. Our community has an unbroken record of voting down expensive projects beginning in 1998 that have tax increases over 40%.
We already expect our 2026 total property tax bill to increase significantly given the intentions of King County, the King County Library System, Sound Transit, and the Port. Locally, the Mercer Island School District announced a new 4-year $68M EP&O levy, which represents a 43% increase over the existing levy.
Despite the recent defeat of Prop. 1, we urge the council not to equate the bond’s failure to “just a lack of marketing or poor marketing.”
We believe the city can pass a bond in April with a re-designed facility that comes in at $50 million with half of that financed internally through fund balances and half with a councilmanic bond using existing revenue streams.
The latest state auditor’s report identifies $40M in “assigned funds.” These assignments can be reviewed based on the relatively new priority of the maintenance facility. There’s also $16 million in “unassigned funds.” These funds should be easier to program for the maintenance facility.
To arrive at the $50 million figure, build to accommodate present “needs” and eliminate nice to haves. For instance, severely reduce overhead parking coverage and office space. Separate the Level IV police/EOC needs from the maintenance building. Scale back or eliminate EV infrastructure, atrium, work out room, and change from a drive through design to a stall designed maintenance building. The emergency water design seems like a maintenance headache along with unnecessary redundancy to our water line replacement program and our emergency well capability.
There are exponential savings and other advantages from a smaller footprint. A smaller footprint can be surveyed to take advantage of the “easy” ground thereby eliminating expensive retaining walls and excavating. Excavating this property may be financially catastrophic as the area has a long and documented history of contamination. If needed, a smaller footprint gives the city flexibility for future expansion.
Under the best of circumstances, the new facility was scheduled to open in November 2028 or mid-2029. If the city heeds these observations, they can still make that schedule without crowding out District needs.
If you wish to stay informed as this project is reconfigured, visit www.miforss.com and join our email list.
Mike Cero, Mercer Island
