Assessors Office cuts in Budget need to include Capital Improvements for Stronger Efficiencies

November 19, 2009

If the Assessors Office needs to cut expenses this is how I would cut the expenses.

The predicament which the King County Assessors Office is currently facing is the Assessor is a new assessor and coming into the Office.  Skills from other areas will be carried forward but to have to cut a budget prior to taking office is a new one.  Traditionally is the Chief Operating Position or CEO position a new executive does get the privilege of looking at products, personnel, marketing, finances, etc. for a two or three month period of time.  During this time assessments and what needs to be done are assembled.  Then after that period of time, personnel, marketing or product mix have been evaluated and cuts are made.  The axe falls quickly and swiftly but there is a time whereby a true assessment of the company mix can be accumalated and formulated for a more refined mix of all types of company assets. 

Mr. Lloyd Hara is not being given this luxury so what I sat down and did was formulated some of my own thought which I believe Mr. Hara may want to consider but these would only be somethings which may want to be considered.  In no way would I require these to be mandatory but rather only suggestions.  I always have health that ideas can amount to about twenty or so and then maybe one, two, or three of those ideas may be actually sound enough to be considered.  Again, I have not seen the books of what needs to be done nor have I had a tour of the operations nor have I even had an education course on the art science of appraising.  I have taken a real estate class and a mortgage processing class however.  These are completely and utterly different from the process of assessment however.

I do wish Mr. Lloyd Hara his best efforts in being able to cut his budget and wish his best efforts in its refinement.  I do not in the remotest know his efforts will be painless.  Without being able to know what was at stake how can one know what can be eliminated.  Again, I would however, try to see if production standards can be increased by capital improvements.  Capital improvements do cost money but cuts in manpower are the greatest saver of expenses and the replacement of manpower can be and easily be replaced by equipment which makes the personnel more productive.  An easier process through the use of equipment is also the road to a happier workplace. 

Here are some of my ideas on what could possibly be considered to reduce or replace man-hours in the King County Assessors Office.           

   1)  If the people walk from one location to another then time could be reduced if the distance of time is reduced from one location to the next. 

a)  You may need to get those same travel machines which the parking enforcement has.

  b)  Or you could get completely electric vehicles so no fuel is being used whatsoever.  The engines would not be being idle all day long.  Found this at the car show this last weekend.  The greening of America should be coming out of the county budget as an extra.  If man-hours can be diminished via this method then the task could take less time.  I would experiment with one vehicle or two and then see if the appraisers get more done or how much less the cost of maintenance is.  That has to be one of your largest expenses also is the cost of fuel.
MC Electric Vehicles
Ty Rice
1200 South Dearborn Street
Seattle, WA 98144
I told a CEO and Chairman of the 1400 largest U.S.A. company that different companies have different equipment due to the size of the operations.  A smaller company will be people intensive and rely upon machinery which is less costly but more people intensive.  This is because capital is more scarce for the smaller business.  This way the small company would be able to compete with the larger company which has to rely upon larger more costly equipment.  The capital intensity give more profit but the working man hours are less and thus the workers are more productive.
2)  The other way would be to find out if instead of an assessment once every six years is if the assessment can be made once every seven or eight years.  I would assume this is being set by statute at the present time.  Petition the legislature next year for this change.  Or ask the King County Council to do this.  This is spreading the budget by reducing the work load. 
3)  If you are being charged for work space in a downtown building can you lease or get another office throughout King County where the appraisers could be stationed.  Perhaps if appraisals are happening in say the south end of the County get a one year lease and offices and equipment would be located in a temporary one year office.  Citizens could or should also be able to get hearings in that office space as well.  This would be centrally located for the benefit of the appraisers and centrally located for citizens until that areas appraisals are completed.  Another location for one or two years could be lease in another area.  I also know that Mastro Properties has some vacant property which could be leased and probably for a great price.  I have Mr. Mastro’s personal number in my car or could get this quickly if needed.
4)  The other way to do this is lease properties in different parts of the county.  A separation or smaller area each year would be appraised.  Thus you could have four different smaller areas.  This and hte above would reduce on the commuting of appraisers and they would have a better more defined area which they would be working from.  I mean you could even sub-divide this down to where two or three appraisers work out of an office and then the office is closed and moved.  I would not think that the paperwork would have to be submitted but once a week to the downtown office.  Someone could either pick this up as a courier or the appraisers could hand deliver the paperwork to someone downtown.  Or you could have a downtown processing center for this object.     


King County Ordinance 2009-0393 Illegal

November 15, 2009

All Canadian provinces have found out that the only reason someone is getting the H1N1 flu is because they have received a H1N1 vaccine immunization. The H1N1 immunization shot is a direct killer. In the United states alone over 114 children have been killed by H1N1 since April. Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, China and Japan all are either not requiring or prohibiting the H1N1 vaccination shot from being given. This is a man made disease which originated from a vile and is directly construction from the 1918 influenza virus which killed over 30 Million U.S. citizens.

Evidently the H1N1 flu virus does discriminate. It discriminates only toward those who have taken the H1N1 flu vaccination shot. Since the Baxter lab like companies are not liable would this mean that King County would be liable for any complications or injuries which beset the client recipient. In the United states Constitution “Relief in Law” must be provided and would this mean that the Congress or King County would have to pay for any complications. Perhaps this is why the Congress is pressing for Health Insurance coverage so their mistake is actually paid by the citizenry.

Also, the ordinance is not in alignment with federal statutes and it is directly unconstitutional in its ordinance. Congress has the right to all Bills referring to Naturalization. Since illegal immigrants are a Naturalization situation then and only Congress can write bills protecting illegal immigration. King County needs to have direct permission from Congress in order to have this Ordinance enforceable. Working with Congressman McDermott and Congressman Reichert and Congressman Inslee and Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell for legislation needs to be done first before any type of legislation can be passed or considered.

Also, the ordinance was illegally passed because public testimony was not completed prior to its passage at the eleven o’clock hour. Public testimony continued after the one o’clock session which I testified in. The process needs to be where the ordinance needs to be voided and re-entered with full public testimony.

No provision was giving to attempt to have the clinic clients enter into a health insurance policy thus to mitigate or reduce future expenses to the King County Clinics.


 Also, I am working on a project which may decrease our King County budget by somewhere from 5% to 10% for next year. This will be due to incorrect calculations from prior year data which I have observed. Am trying to assemble the information at the present time and will be making a presentation hopefully by the end of the month. So cost saving measures need to be put into ordinance format and perhaps encouragement of people making or getting medical insurance would be a great cost saving idea. Obviously the ball is in your court. **********************************************


Keith Ljunghammar


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM, wrote:

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your email. Ordinance 2009-0393, relating to undocumented immigrants, was adopted by the Council this week. Fully consistent with federal law, the legislation adopts the current practices of King County departments, including the Sheriff’s Office, Public Health, Adult and Juvenile Detention, and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

Under the legislation, all King County residents, regardless of immigration status, can now feel safe in coming forward to report crimes, assist in police investigations and seek preventive medical treatment, such as vaccinations, protecting the public at large and saving taxpayer dollars. King County is a local service provider and does not have the authority to enforce immigration laws or detain people – that is the federal government’s role.

 The Sheriff’s office has stated that they could not do their job if people were afraid to come forward as witnesses or victims. That cooperation is essential to completing effective investigations and protecting the public. With regard to public health, if an epidemic starts in a population that doesn’t have access to care, it’s only a matter of time before it spreads to everyone. Diseases like H1N1 flu don’t discriminate based on whether or not you’re a legal citizen, and therefore, restricting access to care for some hurts us all.

Therefore, providing this protection makes sense from a moral perspective, as well as an economic one. Again, thank you for your email. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding this issue or any other issue in King County.

Sincerely, Julia Patterson, District 5

King County Politics and Illegal Aliens/Undocumented Immigrants

July 3, 2009

The below are the comments about King County Metropolitan King County Council Committee of the Whole Staff Report in reference to the Proposed Ordinance 2009-0393.

This proposed ordinance is trying to say that illegal immigrants are members of the “immigration status” residents and they should also be receiving health benefits under King County rules. 

Comment about the above. See reference to the line numbers.

9) Article 1, Section 8 reserved the (ALL) law to federal jurisdiction.

Article I, Section 8 parts of –
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
11) technically a resident who is here illegally is a non-resident as determined by tax code so this provision does not apply.

13) other estimates go to 30 million based upon social security recipients.

15) if 12% illegal immigrant population and we have 9.5% to as high as over 50% in the Yakama Indian Tribal Land area we have a problem. 32,000 Yakama Indian Tribal member residents to 61,000 illegal immigrants and other legal residents.

17) full-time is an assumption.

18) taxes do not exceed benefits if not a high school graduate. So $46MM divided by 362,900 is $126.75 or if 793,800 Washington illegals then $57.94 per illegal in income. For the cost of illegal immigrants to the State of $800,000 the ratio of costs is lopsided.

22/15 362,900 people versus 203,000 jobs lost. So.

25) Illegals are not residents by definition.

26) Historically – U.S. Constitution preserved to federal mandate enforceable by State Militia by the President. Article I, Section 8.

32) Only if illegal immigrants are not allowed to use rights reserved for citizens and legal immigrants of which this proposal does.

39) Legislation is the job of the Council and and not the judiciary.

42) These laws are specifically reserved to the federal via U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

49) Implied is legal or illegal but wording really refers to legal only.

50) The council could establish cooperative agreements with ICE to allow this. So the problem is with the Council and not the federal in this enforcement. By non-compliance of legislation the Council has already artificially stated that it will not comply with the U.S. Constitution.

52) Simple ICE computer input could determine this. Proper credentialing and cooperation with ICE and County could alleviate this.

61) Washington Secretary of State’s office should already have done this prior to acceptance of voter registration.

68) The federal ICE accepts this as a legal precedence for articulating whether the possibility of being illegal may be present.

78) See 49.

81) or sponsors should be included here.

91) All I-9’s should be E-Verified with the employment processes.

95) Unions should be using E-Verify also as well as subcontractors and contractors and their employees. Federal law exempts union from penalties at the present time.

102) But the prior use of E-Verify should be confirmed for validity of immigration status.