ELECTION 2025: You’ll get a ballot soon. Here’s what the housing-related propositions are about

By Aspen Anderson
Reporting for West Seattle Blog

checkbox.jpgKing County Elections starts sending out ballots tomorrow for the February 11 special election. Your ballot will include four measures related to two issues. First, we’re looking at Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B, which involve funding for the Seattle Social Housing Developer created by a vote two years ago.

The nonprofit coalition House Our Neighbors coalition spearheaded Initiative 135, approved in February 2023 with 57 percent of the vote. This measure established the Seattle Social Housing Developer, tasked with building, owning, and maintaining affordable “social housing.” However, due to Washington state’s single-subject rule, a single ballot measure could not both create the public development authority and provide funding. As a result, Initiative 135 did not include funding for the agency to carry out its mission, aside from startup costs.

Propositions 1A and 1B aim to fill that gap by proposing different ways to fund the Developer.

Social housing in Seattle refers to publicly owned, permanently affordable housing that serves residents across a broad spectrum of incomes, from extremely low to moderate. This mixed-income approach allows the developer to generate more revenue by including tenants from varied income levels, enabling rents to cover maintenance and operational costs while reducing reliance on government subsidies. As a theoretical example, House Our Neighbors, in partnership with Neiman Taber Architects, unveiled a preliminary design for social housing in Seattle. It features eco-friendly buildings offering a variety of housing options, including family-sized apartments, townhouses, and co-living models with shared kitchens and bathrooms on each level.

Tasked with getting social housing built is the Developer, governed by a 13-member board composed of renters, housing experts, and equity advocates. Most members were appointed by city leaders and by groups like the Seattle Renters’ Commission. The board oversees planning and finances, with meetings open to the public. Since its formation, the Developer has focused on building its organizational structure but has not yet constructed any housing due to a lack of consistent funding. Propositions 1A and 1B offer competing solutions to address that.

Proposition 1A
Proposition 1A, introduced through citizen initiative I-137 and signed by thousands of Seattleites, proposes a new payroll tax on employers who pay employees over $1 million annually. The tax is estimated to generate around $50 million a year for the Developer, providing a long-term funding source to build and maintain social housing.

Proposition 1B
Proposition 1B, proposed by the Seattle City Council, proposes to use funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax to allocate $10 million annually for five years to the Developer. This approach avoids creating a new tax but provides less funding and imposes additional oversight requirements.

Key differences:
Funding Source: Proposition 1A establishes a new payroll tax on high-earning employers; Proposition 1B allocates funds from the existing Payroll Expense Tax.

Funding Amount: Proposition 1A estimates to raise approximately $50 million annually, while Proposition 1B limits funding to $10 million per year for five years, adjusted for inflation.

Income Range: Proposition 1A allows for a broader range of incomes, serving low- to moderate-income households. Proposition 1B focuses on developments catering to lower-income residents, limiting eligibility to those with more restricted financial means.

Oversight: Proposition 1A grants the Social Housing Developer greater autonomy, while Proposition 1B requires the Developer to apply for funding and adhere to conditions set by the Seattle Office of Housing.

Support for proposition 1A (full support/opposition statements are linked here)
Supporters of 1A, including State Senator Rebecca Saldaña (D-Seattle), argue that the proposal provides the necessary resources to address the city’s housing crisis.

“This dedicated revenue stream will create more than 2,000 units, including family-sized units, of social housing over the next 10 years,” Saldaña and others wrote. They emphasize that social housing prioritizes workforce and community stability, helping essential workers like teachers and firefighters stay in Seattle.

They add: “Proposition 1B takes $10 million from affordable housing and essential services to keep taxes low for our wealthiest businesses. It also dismantles the proven business model for social housing, guaranteeing that it fails before producing any of the housing we desperately need. “

Support for proposition 1B
Supporters of 1B, such as Al Levine, an instructor at the University of Washington, advocate for a cautious approach.

“We need more affordable housing and accountability,” Levine and others wrote. “Proposition 1B provides $10 million a year of existing tax revenues for five years to test if the concept works.”

“We need more affordable housing and accountability, but the social housing Public Development Authority (PDA) was only created in 2023 and uses an unproven concept for building and managing housing. Social housing has never been tried in Seattle and is done in one other place in the United States. This concept may have merit, but can it deliver $50 million worth of housing every year when it hasn’t delivered any?”

Opposition to both
Critics, including former housing nonprofit director Alice Woldt, oppose both measures, arguing they fail to prioritize the city’s most vulnerable residents.

“New tax revenues should assist truly poor residents,” Woldt and others wrote. “Social housing advocates want $520 million over 10 years for higher-income apartments, leaving only 60 units for the homeless.”

In February 2024, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, led by President and CEO Rachel Smith, criticized Initiative 137 (I-137). Smith described the initiative as a “blank check” for an “unprepared” social housing developer, expressing concerns about the lack of a concrete plan and the potential financial burden on Seattle residents.

Social housing in practice

Vienna, Austria, is often highlighted as a global leader in social housing, offering a potential model for long-term housing affordability. In Vienna, the city owns and operates a significant portion of the housing stock, providing affordable rentals to a broad range of incomes. Rents are below market rates and tied to household income, ensuring inclusivity while reducing stigma. Revenue generated from tenant rents is reinvested into maintaining and expanding the housing stock, creating a self-sustaining system that addresses affordability and housing stability.

How the Ballot Works
The ballot will ask two questions:

Should one of the two propositions be adopted?

If yes, which proposition — 1A or 1B — should be implemented?

If a majority votes “No” on the first question, neither measure will pass. If “Yes” prevails, the proposition with more votes on the second question will be adopted.

Election Day is February 11. Ballots must be postmarked by that date or dropped off at a ballot drop box (West Seattle has four) by 8 pm.

Register to vote, if you have not already. Online and mail registrations must be received by February 3 to vote in the election. Or register to vote in person by 8 pm on Election Day.

Also on the ballot
Two Seattle Public Schools levies. We’ll look at those in our next election preview.

69 Replies to "ELECTION 2025: You'll get a ballot soon. Here's what the housing-related propositions are about"

  • No January 21, 2025 (10:40 pm)

    No, no, no…no more words. No

    • Mike January 22, 2025 (4:43 am)

      It’s as though we’re trying to compete with California for being the most regressive tax state.  We might as well just throw cash in a burn pile and make s’mores.

    • Oakley34 January 22, 2025 (8:27 am)

      I take it you (and other no voters) will not complain about encampments or the unhoused?

      • Dr Wu January 22, 2025 (9:02 am)

        There is no political will to solve the unhoused. More tax money isn’t required only a different way of strategic thinking. We cannot tax our way out this problem. 

  • WestSeattleVoter January 22, 2025 (5:50 am)

    As a small landlord with a property in WS, I cannot vote Yes for these while the Legislature mulls limiting rent increases and other new restrictions. I’m being choked here.

    • Jen January 22, 2025 (5:21 pm)

      Agreed. This winds up hurting the mom and pops (per usual in Seattle) and the actual vulnerable populations.

      • Lauren January 22, 2025 (6:06 pm)

        How does this hurt the “mom and pops”?

        • Orb January 27, 2025 (8:20 pm)

          At the end of the day, Seattle landlords with just a property or two are being driven away (like we’ve seen with small businesses) because it’s hard to break even with rising costs of doing business. What ends up happening is large corporations come in (ie Carlyle Group; Blackrock, etc) and they buy the properties, increase rents more than the small landlords had them, and create more homelessness. 

    • BreadCats January 22, 2025 (9:01 pm)

      That’s part of the risk you take in any business. Sell off your properties, you can always get a job. 

      • Peter S. January 23, 2025 (1:49 pm)

        @Breadcats:  That’s a predictable myopic take – “See off your properties”.  That’s exactly what I’m doing.  The business risk you refer to is simply no longer worth it.   There are far less risky and more profitable  investments to put the sale proceeds into, and I won’t have to answer the phone when something unexpectedly needs to be repaired.  

        What you fail to see is this reduces the available rental housing supply, because these former rental houses will now almost certainly be owner-occupied.   Which is fine, but just in case you are unaware, not everyone can afford to buy a house in  West Seattle.  

        And by the way, I already have  a job, thanks.  

        • BreadCats January 26, 2025 (12:35 pm)

          Then get rid of your properties? You’re not providing a real service by owning those properties. You’re basically the equivalent of a property middle manager who’s inflating the cost of living by owning more than you need. Oh noooo, you have to pick up the phone for an emergency repair because you’re leeching off people’s money to pay off your investment because you need to hoard a basic necessity for people. And you take about a rental market as if that’s desirable. Apartments, sure, that makes sense from an economies of scales perspective, but houses shouldn’t be something you buy to invest and rent out. You’re literally eating up a larger part of the supply and driving up the price by extension, so your point of housing prices going up is literally something you’re causing. But you’re not going to see it that way because you’re literally thinking of them as investments and not as a need. 

    • Mellow Kitty January 23, 2025 (3:56 pm)

      You’re mad because someone might say you can’t price people out of their homes. Cry me a river. 

    • David W. January 23, 2025 (6:45 pm)

      You can raise the rent as much as you like. I suppose it’s possible you might be “choked” in the future, but you’re not being choked now. If you think you can find renters willing to pay it, by all means raise rents to your heart’s content!

  • Adam January 22, 2025 (6:16 am)

    No, and if we must, 1B. How many times can we just come up with another terrible way or agency to solve this issue? At least I know if I’m ever out of work, all I gotta do is start some sort of advocacy group for housing. Apparently lots and lots of money there. I can’t wait to see straight-forward assessments years down the road of how the return on investment looks, it won’t be pretty. Pennies on the dollar, I’m sure. 

  • Evidence based January 22, 2025 (7:11 am)

    It works in Vienna, that’s a positive.  So far there’s only one other place in this country. Let’s compare their structure to our proposals. Let’s see their data.Diffusion of innovations needs to be based on small demonstrations with data, multiple small pilot projects. Pilot projects don’t shoot for the moon with major funding. Seattle has way too many examples of well intentioned major boondoggles.  I’m not willing to give $50 million a year to a virtually untested model run by an untested group of people. I am willing to try $10 million a year for 5 years with more oversight. If the evidence shows it works then replicate it, expanding both numbers and scope. Have we learned nothing at all from pouring many millions, ever increasing millions, and what we have to show for it is increased numbers of people living on the streets while nearly every other city and state has reduced their numbers of people unsheltered overnight? They all increased emergency shelters and we didn’t because emergency shelters in at least some forms aren’t great. We instead said we must focus on the affordable housing issue, thus leaving thousands completely unsheltered. And how many millions went to the ineffectual Regional Housing Authority? I think we have a track record of well meaning decisions without data or accountability. I’m voting for the smaller choice. Data. Rigorous science based evidence.

    • DC January 22, 2025 (12:15 pm)

      The main problem with 1B is that it isn’t even social housing. Restricting it to only the poorest ensures that it will not be self-sustaining and maintains segregated housing. There’s extensive data showing that when poor people live close to better off people they get better results while there is a reinforcing tendency when living exclusively with other poor people. I’m not in love with either option, but if we want to give real social housing a chance, we have to vote 1A.

    • Ms. Sparkles January 22, 2025 (1:35 pm)

      Both “EVIDENCE BASED” and “DC” make good points – which unfortunately for me lands me right back to where I was before I read WS Blogs explanation of the issues & choices. UGH. I WANT 1A to work, for it not to be throwing good money away (see monorail debacle), but the accountant in me feels like 1B is safer. BUT if Social Housing is to work the way it was sold to us on the ballot, it can’t be subject to city counsel’s whims, it needs to be its own thing with its own funding. I’m leaning toward 1A to really give it a chance to succeed how it was envisioned – contingent upon further research on how hard it will be to dismantle if it shows itself to be another resource-sucking boondogle

  • Anne January 22, 2025 (7:24 am)

    NO!Often overlooked by voters who  often blindly vote yes for every housing initiative is just how many units will be built for the truly most vulnerable. We must look closer at exactly how funding  $$  are spent.Read this part again: Critics, including former housing nonprofit director Alice Woldt, oppose both measures, arguing they fail to prioritize the city’s most vulnerable residents.“New tax revenues should assist truly poor residents,” Woldt and others wrote. “Social housing advocates want $520 million over 10 years for higher-income apartments, leaving only 60 units for the homeless.”We shouldn’t approve -just to approve-we should require -demand the MAJORITY -if not ALL of housing units built be for the homeless. With an expectation of services to go along-once homeless are housed & safe-they can build on that with services that help with jobs, education, health etc. The downside of that of course is that it wouldn’t truly be social housing -which depends on the moderate income majority revenue to keep it self-sustaining. 

  • Jen January 22, 2025 (7:29 am)

    Thanks WS Blog for explaining this so well!! It will make voting easier. 

  • Deregulation January 22, 2025 (8:58 am)

    Didn’t vote for the current president but with the new administration this is the perfect time for the progressive dream of building more. Less delay from undemocratic complaints and meetings; less environmental review and more rubber stamping of housing. Yes to doing light rail (we don’t need to ask for more feedback since Monday and can stop anymore reviews). Make the most of these opportunities. I suspect the usual people will complain but we need to be brave enough to push Seattle into the new Golden Age by building more and often. Always be building!  

    • Derp January 22, 2025 (10:24 am)

      Please stop,  moving backwards is not the answer. 

      • Deregulation January 22, 2025 (10:55 am)

        The only question is does this increase Seattle’s prosperity. This might be a high risk venture but it’s also high reward if successful. What we don’t need is more community involvement from the likes of the nimbys on here. A lot voted for this style of government. If you don’t like it vote differently next time. Build baby build! 

        • Also John January 22, 2025 (4:37 pm)

          It sounds like you’re thrilled with derugulations?    Shall we fill in our two West Seattle salmon bearing creeks and build above?   Cut down those pesky tall native trees and slap some down some homes?   Not require oil/water seperators at construction sites?    Shall we stop with pumping our wastewater to Discovery Park and simply dump it directly off Alki?

    • Johnny Stulic January 22, 2025 (11:04 am)

      You’re under a delusion that this pseudo-libertarian wet dream of federal deregulation somehow applies to city and county regulations. It doesn’t. TFG administration has no magic wand to Expelliarmus those away.
      Your other misapprehension is that there is such thing as “affordable housing” which you’re probably calling for. There isn’t. The “affordable” stands for “subsidized” to make it more palatable to both home-owners and renters who are subsidizing it through taxes, increased rents, and increased cost of living in Seattle.

  • AK January 22, 2025 (9:52 am)

    Agree with all the NOs! No money for them. They just keep wasting it.

    • WSB January 22, 2025 (10:25 am)

      This particular “they” is a new entity, as explained above. They haven’t had funding yet to spend (aside from the startup funding approved by voters with the creation of this entity), and that is what this election is about.

      • AK January 22, 2025 (10:28 am)

        WSB, thank you for the clarification. I will still be voting no and when I say “they”, I mean the City of Seattle.

  • Scarlett January 22, 2025 (10:15 am)

    What we need is massive federal housing action on the scale of those of the early 20th century, such as the Federal Housing Act of 1934, and subsequent actions; everything else is a superficial band-aid and inadequate.  Unlikely to happen as our gangster-in-chief, surrounded by his tech bros at his first presser, has confirmed his loyalties and priorities.   This isn’t the Golden Age, it’s the Golden Fleecing. 

    • Bitterly honest January 26, 2025 (2:44 pm)

      Trump acts at the federal level. He cannot intervene in trivial matters at the county level. The most he can do is deny federal funding. So bringing him into this discussion is a distraction from the failures of city council. They have full reign so hold them accountable

  • K January 22, 2025 (10:33 am)

    Really appreciate this breakdown, thanks!

  • Kyle January 22, 2025 (11:31 am)

    Hard pass on 1A l, maybe on 1B. Seemed ridiculous that this was passed without a funding source a few years ago. I’ll need to see how they spent their start up money and the results from that to see if 1B is warranted.

    • Hunk January 22, 2025 (11:07 pm)

      As noted in the article, state law prevents initiatives from covering new topics. It was not legally possible to have an initiative both create the agency and fund it. Maybe that’s a silly rule, but it can hardly be held against this program.

  • Jacob January 22, 2025 (11:42 am)

    More housing and more affordable/social housing. Without a safety net people are on the streets. No society should allow that.        

  • Jay January 22, 2025 (12:06 pm)

    The only viable option for the good people of West Seattle is not addressing homelessness but enacting punitive measures against the homeless. The idea of housing, clothing, and feeding these neighbors and giving them a pathway out of destitution is abhorrent. The fact that it would cost a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the profits of our largest job creators is completely unacceptable. I’m reminded of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Perhaps we should euthanize them?  We could satiate the landed gentry’s hunger by feeding them the homeless as a centerpiece of magnificent feasts to celebrate our economic prosperity.

    • Jacob January 22, 2025 (12:44 pm)

      Perfect satire

    • Ms. Sparkles January 22, 2025 (1:25 pm)

      Brilliant. I’d forgotten about Jonathan Swift and his brilliant satire – absolutely perfect application here.

    • Anne January 22, 2025 (3:05 pm)

      These are not the answer because it’s not addressing the lack housing for  the truly vulnerable -those with extremely low or absolutely no income. Out of the all the units built perhaps 60 would be for them -are you ok with that-because im not & that’s the problem -not really addressing that is how Seattle/KC seems to roll.

      • K January 23, 2025 (2:19 am)

        So you’re saying that since 60 isn’t enough, the answer is to build zero?  Because zero is more helpful than 60?

  • Rhonda January 22, 2025 (12:48 pm)

    N O 

    • Seattlite January 22, 2025 (1:25 pm)

      A BIG NO!

    • k January 22, 2025 (1:46 pm)

      Y E S

    • walkerws January 22, 2025 (2:36 pm)

      Yes though

  • oerthehillz January 22, 2025 (1:58 pm)

    When are we going to learn that a roof over an addicts head doesn’t last. It’s treatment first, then housing. When it’s the other way around it’s not sustainable. We need manditory treatment centers which include vocational training and mental health treatment options.

    • K January 22, 2025 (5:10 pm)

      When are we going to learn that homeless poor people and addicts are two distinct groups of people.  There is some overlap, but most addicts are housed.

    • Kyle January 22, 2025 (8:12 pm)

      This is not true as someone who grew up in the Detroit area, or other areas with lower housing costs. Saw plenty of housed addicts. Don’t get me wrong, addiction should be addressed but the high cost housing barrier is real.

  • anonyme January 22, 2025 (3:52 pm)

    Yet another glaring example of the inefficiency of local initiatives and propositions.  The financial options should have been included in the initial ballot proposal.  The same stunt was pulled with mental health crisis centers, which we’re no closer to seeing realized several years later.  Why vote for some idealistic pie in the sky notion with no freaking idea how it will be paid for?   Add to that a fact that few voters are aware of: these special elections cost five to six MILLION dollars each.  Five or six million taxpayer dollars that could have gone instead to actually fixing one of this city’s many problems, including a budget shortfall.  That kind of money could even pay for some actual housing, instead of options for developers.  Absolute nonsense.  I would like to know who backed this special election.

    • k January 22, 2025 (4:41 pm)

      The WSB story explains that Initiative rules don’t allow the financial options and the proposal to be included in the same initiative.  If you would like to see this done differently, you need to work on changing election rules.  Those who backed the initiative would have preferred to do it all at once.

      • anonyme January 23, 2025 (5:27 am)

        Thanks for the clarification; I missed that part on the first read.  This does indeed need to change.  Either way, a special election is not required.  It only displays a penchant for fiscal irresponsibility. Other comments indicate that the city council was responsible for declaring a special election due to missing a deadline; no surprise there. After all, taxpayers have bottomless pockets in their view.

  • Admiral-2009 January 22, 2025 (6:03 pm)

    Vote NO! 

    And what I do not understand is why the 250+ never used Tiny Homes are sitting on lots in Sodo and are not being deployed and used?

    • WSB January 22, 2025 (9:13 pm)

      Separate from whatever the issue is with the volunteer-built tiny homes, they are considered temporary shelter, while what this measure is about is funding for permanent housing, at various income levels, not just low income.

  • Lauren January 22, 2025 (6:10 pm)

    I’ll be voting yes. It seems promising, based on other cities’ successes. And taxing employers who pay over $1m in employee salaries seems more than fair. After all, they certainly contributed to our current housing crisis and drastic economic inequality. 

    • Question Authority January 22, 2025 (9:51 pm)

      Those employers created jobs that pay wages and those employees have to live somewhere, so it’s those with wages thru skill or educational endeavors that make the rest of society suffer?  Get real as life is both really easy or hard and only you alone can make the most of it, stop the excuses of fairness because life is not.

  • Citizen Joe January 22, 2025 (9:36 pm)

    I will be voting YES to 1A. I’d rather bet on progressive policies than be a miserly penny counter. In the words of our dear President, “Drill baby drill!”

  • WS Guy January 22, 2025 (10:04 pm)

    Absolutely not. 

  • WSzombie January 22, 2025 (10:06 pm)

    Why is there an election now? I mean, I understand there couldn’t be multiple items in the vote, but couldn’t this wait until another one of the voting periods? Seattle voter turnout is already an abysmal ~50% in elections, it’s even worse at ~35% for mid-term and special elections. It’s too easy to pass an initiative with this few voters. Obviously people will say, “then go vote”. Yes, I get it, but I can’t control anybody else when I’m struggling to make ends meet myself. 

  • WSzombie January 22, 2025 (10:16 pm)

    I implore everyone to please read the profiles of the board that will be entrusted with hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars. None of the 13 board members have ANY experience with real estate development, budget management, or social program management. Most were appointed by the city council or other politician. This can’t be allowed to pass without proper oversight and enforcement by experienced professionals.https://www.socialhousingseattle.org/board

    • WSB January 23, 2025 (2:05 am)

      There are 11 board members listed on that page. Six of them were appointed by the Seattle Renters Commission, members of which are not politicians. Two were appointed by the council, one by the mayor, and two by other boards (MLK Labor and Green New Deal Oversight). According to the Social Housing Developer’s charter (page 3) the board is supposed to have 12 members, 7 appointed by the Renters Commission; it’s all as detailed here:
      https://www.socialhousingseattle.org/_files/ugd/5cf483_b2eedde2f2df4b0e8046c46aee2073c2.pdf
      To your point, that also stipulates this regarding the council and mayor’s 3 appointees: “Of the members appointed by the Mayor and City Council, there must be members with expertise in public housing finance, urban planning, and nonprofit housing development.” And the Green New Deal appointee, Mike Eliason, is an architect.

    • Firefighter February 8, 2025 (11:51 am)

      Please send your logic about administrator skills, experience and requirements to King trumpy. He hasn’t gotten that memo. This is the age of MAGA Anarchy. Expertise and skills don’t matter anymore; science is no longer tolerated; only wealth and the Dogma of Destruction, ripping down what others have built, matters. . 

  • Yes January 23, 2025 (3:35 pm)

    Yes, Yes, Yes…Yes more words. Yes

  • Pat M January 24, 2025 (6:26 pm)

    Is 1A paid on “total company ayroll in excess of $1m/yr” or 5% of payroll to any individual employee (ie, read mgt) that earns over $1m/yr?k.In either case, it will result in companies moving out of Seattle.1B sounds like a band-aid, and a back door way to defeat 1A.

    • k January 24, 2025 (7:07 pm)

      Those companies moving TO Seattle was a big part of creating the housing crunch we have, so them leaving will help too.  Win/win! And yes, 1B is nonsense. Harrell already raided that fund to give the police a raise. The money Microsoft is throwing at 1B is all I needed to see to know that 1A is the right choice.

      • D. Mayer January 26, 2025 (1:41 pm)

        Microsoft supports 1B, ergo 1A is the progressive way forward, just as I guessed at the beginning of this discussion.  If you’re still wondering, Bruce Harrell  also supports 1B, according to a mailer received today!

    • SF February 6, 2025 (12:29 pm)

      Did you ever find the answer to ” Is 1A paid on “total company payroll in excess of $1m/yr” or 5% of payroll to any individual employee (ie, read mgt) that earns over $1m/yr?” I’m still trying to find this answer. Thanks.

  • Mariah L January 27, 2025 (9:38 pm)

    VOTING YES    

  • Maybe January 29, 2025 (2:16 pm)

    This seems like a proposal funded by builders who want more contracts. What happens once the houses are built? – does this also create an administration to vet folks needing housing, connect them with services, manage the properties and direct the work of builders? Will the city be able to make a case for re-developing existing properties like unused office buildings? How will they make sure it doesn’t all just get slapdash as crappy subsidized apartment blocks, and actually feel like a welcoming neighborhood? We need more housing units sure, but that’s only part of the story.

  • SF February 6, 2025 (1:02 pm)

    Does anyone know the answer to  ” Is 1A paid on “total company payroll in excess of $1m/yr” or 5% of payroll to any single individual employee (ie, read mgt) that earns over $1m/yr?” I’m still trying to find this answer. Thanks.

Sorry, comment time is over.