2025 City Bond/Proposals
Subject: City’s Big Beautiful Building
Ballots arrive this weekend.
Please vote No on the $103M City Bond to finance what is predominately a Maintenance Facility with overhead coverage for a greatly expanded fleet of vehicles.
There are two issues of concern we have with the proposed $103M bond to fund a maintenance facility.
First, the facility proposal is significantly larger than necessary, doubling the current footprint. Second, it seeks to fund the entire project through the bond, despite the district having a $100M fund balance that should be considered to pay for the project.
The root cause of the proposed expensive and expansive design begins with the process itself. The Council should conduct a process where their “last meeting is first.” Instead of addressing the cost of the facility last, engage the public at the beginning. An added level of transparency is understanding or coordinating the School District’s funding needs for facilities.
Our Recommended Approach
Step 1: Budget
The Community has a record of voting down expensive projects:
- 1998 $19.5M Community Center defeat
- 2018 Excess Levy defeat (45% tax increase at the end of six-year city property tax increases)
- 2025 MI School Bond defeat (40% local school property tax increase).
The recent defeats suggest increases in the 40% range exceed the Community’s tolerance. We believe the Community will support a 20% city property tax increase based on the Median Household Value. A 20% tax increase on the 2025 $2M Median Household is approximately $350 per year. Assuming a similar 25-year financing package as the proposed bond, this translates into a project value of approximately $50M.
Step 2: Design
Engage the architect with the direction of a $50M total budget. Acknowledge our mature island community and direct the architect to design a facility for today’s “needs” with maximum flexibility to accommodate upgrades or expansion. We are especially critical of the need for additional office space. The ratio of desks to employees is counter to today’s field electronics and flexible work schedules. Maintenance and police “make their money” out of the office. The overhead parking coverage is not necessary in the temperate NW. Again, climate-controlled parking is not necessary in the temperate NW. EV/battery advancements make general public EV infrastructure obsolete. EV range exceeds 200 miles and owners “re-fuel” at home. The pass-through maintenance facility seems problematic and excessively expensive compared to bays with garage doors (Council Discussion: https://youtu.be/tsEAznxjLDk?t=11834).
Step 3: Financing
Conduct a sweeping evaluation of fund balances with the intent to re-prioritize funds and/or utilize existing fund balances to help offset the $50M. We believe the Council can offset a $50M new design by one half. The City has done this before. Islanders forced the Council to think outside the box by defeating the 1998 $19.5M Community Center bond. In response, the Council re-designed the project in 2004 and internally financed the new $13M design by “finding” $10M from fund balances and floating a $3M councilmanic bond (AB3881 6/21/04) from existing revenue streams.
Vote No. Vote to give the Council a second chance to right size the building.
Timeline of MISS Proposals:
Letter to the editor MIR October 2025
I urge you to Vote NO. Islanders deserve a better design than the one proposed by Prop 1. Go to https://www.miforss.com/2025-city-bond/ to see our proposal.
Email to the Community o/a September 18, 2025
Our Proposal
Right-size the project to today’s needs. Our analysis documents the design is much larger than necessary. As we pointed out in 2018, there are financing decisions that can minimize the tax burden by taking advantage of the City’s $100M Total Fund Balance. A balance that has increased 164% over 10 years even while the City’s expenses have increased 122% over the same 10 years. Meaning, the City has increased fund balances while also rapidly increasing expenditures! It’s a great business model except for the taxpayer.
The City’s financials list $37M in “available funds” with arguably another $15M in funds exceeding “minimum balances.” By right sizing the building, we think the City can design a facility that exceeds the public’s expectations, provides excellent facilities for our maintenance and police personnel while increasing future flexibility to adapt to our mature Community.
Email to the Community o/a September 9, 2025
Our Proposal
Our analysis determines the design is much larger than necessary. Additionally, as we pointed out in 2018, there are financing decisions that can minimize the tax burden by taking advantage of the City’s $100M Total Fund Balance. A balance that has increased 164% over 10 years. The City’s financials list $37M in “available funds” with arguably another $15M in funds exceeding minimum balances. By right sizing the building and tapping in the “available funds,” we feel the Council can preserve services, increase flexibility and address affordability on the Island.
Letter to the editor MIR June 2025
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.