LETTER | In Response to Mr. Style’s Letter about Annexation

By on December 16, 2009 in Archived, Government, Headlines, Opinion

In this letter to the editor written by Mr. Robert L. Style, some comments were made regarding Mr. Toby Nixon. We invited Mr. Nixon to write a response and we have posted it here in its entirety. -Admin

By Toby Nixon

It is incorrect to say that the city will “lose out on more than $75,000” by moving the effective date of annexation to June 1 from July 1, 2011. That figure is based on an estimate of monthly sales tax collections in the PAA. If the annexation date is June 1, 2011, then the city will not be able to collect sales tax in the annexation area during June 2011, because sales tax changes can only be implemented by the state Department of Revenue at the beginning of a calendar quarter. But if the effective date of annexation is July 1, 2011, the city will still not receive sales tax revenue for June. There is thus no difference in the amount of sales tax revenue to be collected by moving the effective date up by one month. The city does not collect less revenue by moving the effective date up by a month. The city is not “losing out” on anything.


Even though there won’t be any revenue “lost” by moving the annexation effective date to June 1 from July 1, there could possibly be additional expenses to the city by providing services to the PAA one month earlier. However, those expenses would likely be only a small delta over the existing planned expenses. The city plans to hire and train additional police officers well in advance of the July 1 date; moving the annexation effective date a month earlier will not substantially impact on those police staffing expenses, since all of the officers would have been on-board before June 1 anyway. If the Kirkland police arrest someone in the annexation area during June and need to jail them, there could be expenses that would otherwise have fallen on King County. It is possible that some staffing costs in other areas might be incurred during June, but it really isn’t necessary for staff in other areas (parks, planning, etc.) to be added a month earlier in order to accommodate annexation. When the city really looks at the transition budget, I predict that there will be very little fiscal impact from annexation being effective on June 1 rather than on July 1.

The most significant impact of the earlier date is that voters in the annexation area (all of the voters, not just me) will have the opportunity to file for election to the seats on the Kirkland City Council in 2011 rather than having to wait until 2013. This is very significant to many residents of the annexation area, a number of whom expressed concern at the community meetings that they would be excluded from running for office in the city for the first two years after annexation. The city council is to be commended for recognizing this as a fundamental fairness issue and enabling the new Kirkland citizens in the PAA to fully exercise their citizenship as early as possible while still providing the needed ramp-up time for services.

As for Mr. Style’s accusation of manipulation of information, I trust the citizens of Kirkland to sort out for themselves just who are the more frequent sources of manipulated information in Kirkland politics, and who they should trust as an information source.

Best regards,

Toby Nixon

Kirkland

About Toby Nixon

View all posts by Toby Nixon →

  • Bob Style

    Mr. Nixon:

    The $75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for is a lost to their budget, money they could spend for something else but now cannot. There are no revenues to replace it. It”s amazing how you can interpret city staff’s report on the consequences of moving of the effective date. I would advise everyone to review what staff had to say at the city’s archive recording of the meeting.

    I must admit, you have the talents of being a politician. It’s becomes a good reason for us to listen to someone else besides yourself.

    Bob

  • Bob Style

    Mr. Nixon:

    The $75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for is a lost to their budget, money they could spend for something else but now cannot. There are no revenues to replace it. It”s amazing how you can interpret city staff’s report on the consequences of moving of the effective date. I would advise everyone to review what staff had to say at the city’s archive recording of the meeting.

    I must admit, you have the talents of being a politician. It’s becomes a good reason for us to listen to someone else besides yourself.

    Bob

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Exactly what “$75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for” are you talking about, Bob? Point us to any $75,000 expense documented or projected anywhere with regard to moving the effective date from July 1 to June 1. Give is a URL and page number to the presentation or document describing a “$75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for”, or the time stamp in the recording at which such a description was made verbally at a council meeting.

    There is none, Bob. City staff have never mentioned any such $75,000 expense. It is a figment of your imagination.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Exactly what “$75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for” are you talking about, Bob? Point us to any $75,000 expense documented or projected anywhere with regard to moving the effective date from July 1 to June 1. Give is a URL and page number to the presentation or document describing a “$75,000 expense that the city will have to pay for”, or the time stamp in the recording at which such a description was made verbally at a council meeting.

    There is none, Bob. City staff have never mentioned any such $75,000 expense. It is a figment of your imagination.

  • Scott Brady

    You forgot to quote Shakespeare in your reply Toby.

  • Scott Brady

    You forgot to quote Shakespeare in your reply Toby.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    ‘Tis better to be brief than tedious.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    ‘Tis better to be brief than tedious.

  • Scott Brady

    Have we eaten on the insane root That takes the reason prisoner?

  • Scott Brady

    Have we eaten on the insane root That takes the reason prisoner?

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.

  • http://www.nokirkland.com/ Scott Brady

    Toby,

    We can exchange Shakespeare quotes all day, and maybe move on to Nietzsche at some point. Either way it’s not very productive, and we are both a lot smarter and better men if we do not exchange pithy rejoinder into perpetuity.

    Now I request that you make no excuse. I ask that you apologize for openly calling me a liar, and insinuating that I was a sign thief this summer. We both know that neither are true. For my part, I have already posted retractions for the one PDC related statement I made on facebook which prompted you to call me a liar there. And consider validation by the council and staff admission of the current crisis to validate my position on the issues to date.

    Please join me in moving on from the disagreement, and returning to the constructive process so that we can help EVERYONE, regardless of viewpoint, during the coming transition.

    Sincerely,

    Scott Brady

  • http://www.nokirkland.com Scott Brady

    Toby,

    We can exchange Shakespeare quotes all day, and maybe move on to Nietzsche at some point. Either way it’s not very productive, and we are both a lot smarter and better men if we do not exchange pithy rejoinder into perpetuity.

    Now I request that you make no excuse. I ask that you apologize for openly calling me a liar, and insinuating that I was a sign thief this summer. We both know that neither are true. For my part, I have already posted retractions for the one PDC related statement I made on facebook which prompted you to call me a liar there. And consider validation by the council and staff admission of the current crisis to validate my position on the issues to date.

    Please join me in moving on from the disagreement, and returning to the constructive process so that we can help EVERYONE, regardless of viewpoint, during the coming transition.

    Sincerely,

    Scott Brady

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Scott, I do not regret, retract, or apologize for anything I said or did during the annexation campaign. For all your waving of olive branches here, your web site continues to promulgate false and distorted information and to personally attack me. If you want to “move on”, you might start by taking down your own very public attacks. I look forward to working together with everyone to implement annexation as smoothly as possible, but the actions of some opponents of annexation during the campaign, a number of which were personally focused on me, are not easy to just set aside, especially when they continue to this day.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Scott, I do not regret, retract, or apologize for anything I said or did during the annexation campaign. For all your waving of olive branches here, your web site continues to promulgate false and distorted information and to personally attack me. If you want to “move on”, you might start by taking down your own very public attacks. I look forward to working together with everyone to implement annexation as smoothly as possible, but the actions of some opponents of annexation during the campaign, a number of which were personally focused on me, are not easy to just set aside, especially when they continue to this day.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Oh — and neither you, Scott, nor Bob Style, have yet explained how Kirkland either “loses” $75,000 in tax revenue or incurs $75,000 in additional expenses by moving the effective date of annexation from July 1 to June 1. Your web site says “That decision, which was pushed hard by the same four council members who voted yes will cost the city between $75,000 and $100,000 in state tax credit revenue for the month of June.” That is fiction, Scott, and you know it. Is this another lie that you’re going to leave hanging out there forever?

    • http://www.nokirkland.com/ Scott Brady

      Response below on the annexation effective date. I think you’ll be surprised and may want to read my response further down the page before you instantly respond with another assault.

      The statement above was factual. That is how the events unfolded at the council meeting. I don’t need to defend them, though I will say that in watching the meeting again on video I was able to gain a better perspective on how any tax revenue loss may be offset (my full repsonse on that is below). And you know what, I did decide to revamp my site this evening. Though not because of yet another of your petty attacks in calling me a liar.

      I’ve changed the site because after reading your bitter commentary, and then reading the message I posted there yesterday, I realized that my final words on the annexation were not representative of the message I aimed to convey. Instead those statements conveyed the aggravation I felt after the annexation vote was decided by the Kirkland City Council. And the message wasn’t consistent with the decision I arrived at late last night to make a positive change out of such a negative summer by finding a positive way to contribute to the City of Kirkland and the overall success of annexation now that it has been passed.

      I’m sure that I’ve earned another nasty comment and probably some more Shakespeare, but to each his own.

      I for one hope that you have a great evening,

      Scott

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Oh — and neither you, Scott, nor Bob Style, have yet explained how Kirkland either “loses” $75,000 in tax revenue or incurs $75,000 in additional expenses by moving the effective date of annexation from July 1 to June 1. Your web site says “That decision, which was pushed hard by the same four council members who voted yes will cost the city between $75,000 and $100,000 in state tax credit revenue for the month of June.” That is fiction, Scott, and you know it. Is this another lie that you’re going to leave hanging out there forever?

    • http://www.nokirkland.com Scott Brady

      Response below on the annexation effective date. I think you’ll be surprised and may want to read my response further down the page before you instantly respond with another assault.

      The statement above was factual. That is how the events unfolded at the council meeting. I don’t need to defend them, though I will say that in watching the meeting again on video I was able to gain a better perspective on how any tax revenue loss may be offset (my full repsonse on that is below). And you know what, I did decide to revamp my site this evening. Though not because of yet another of your petty attacks in calling me a liar.

      I’ve changed the site because after reading your bitter commentary, and then reading the message I posted there yesterday, I realized that my final words on the annexation were not representative of the message I aimed to convey. Instead those statements conveyed the aggravation I felt after the annexation vote was decided by the Kirkland City Council. And the message wasn’t consistent with the decision I arrived at late last night to make a positive change out of such a negative summer by finding a positive way to contribute to the City of Kirkland and the overall success of annexation now that it has been passed.

      I’m sure that I’ve earned another nasty comment and probably some more Shakespeare, but to each his own.

      I for one hope that you have a great evening,

      Scott

  • Kathy

    Please stop the bantering! I have been for the annexation for years because we have no consistancy in our services. For years, I have received jury duty notices for the City of Kirkland bcause somebody realized I lived on the “wrong side of the street.” When there was an issue on my street during graduation-the 2 police depts couldn’t figure out who’s responsible to respond to the problem, in the end, no one showed up! I am personally tired of being in No Man’s Land! I am glad to now become part of Kirkland, finally.

  • Kathy

    Please stop the bantering! I have been for the annexation for years because we have no consistancy in our services. For years, I have received jury duty notices for the City of Kirkland bcause somebody realized I lived on the “wrong side of the street.” When there was an issue on my street during graduation-the 2 police depts couldn’t figure out who’s responsible to respond to the problem, in the end, no one showed up! I am personally tired of being in No Man’s Land! I am glad to now become part of Kirkland, finally.

  • Mathew Pruitt

    I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work and effort Mr. Nixon and the entire One Kirkland committee has put into annexation. I have known Toby in some form since he was first elected to the the legislature and I have never once seen or heard about a time when he did anything out of self interest. In fact, exactly the opposite. I don’t always agree with him, but if more people approached public policy in the thoughtful and unbiased manner that he did, the world would be a better place.

    You lost Bob and Scott, not because the people who disagreed with you are unethical or out for their own self interest, but because they were the majority. That is how the system works. Furthermore, I think the fact that the residents of Kirkland just elected four very vocal pro-annexation city council candidates, and the vote to approve annexation in the PAA was over 59%, is further evidence that the majority took the action that the people who they represent wanted them to take.

    It’s over. Move on.

  • Mathew Pruitt

    I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work and effort Mr. Nixon and the entire One Kirkland committee has put into annexation. I have known Toby in some form since he was first elected to the the legislature and I have never once seen or heard about a time when he did anything out of self interest. In fact, exactly the opposite. I don’t always agree with him, but if more people approached public policy in the thoughtful and unbiased manner that he did, the world would be a better place.

    You lost Bob and Scott, not because the people who disagreed with you are unethical or out for their own self interest, but because they were the majority. That is how the system works. Furthermore, I think the fact that the residents of Kirkland just elected four very vocal pro-annexation city council candidates, and the vote to approve annexation in the PAA was over 59%, is further evidence that the majority took the action that the people who they represent wanted them to take.

    It’s over. Move on.

  • Scott Brady

    Toby et al,

    In my opinion there are three main points of the annexation effective date decision that need to be considered: 1) There is no way to know the exact impact of the sales tax revenue loss and an estimated $75,000-$100,000 isn’t very much money in terms of Kirkland’s overall budget. 2) Since a potential impact to revenue is known it can be planned and adjusted for well ahead of time. While any amount of money is very important, any potential loss or offset in revenue will be known and will likely not impact services. 3) Representation is now assured in the 2011 election cycle. Representation is a key issue and I’m glad that we’ll have a chance to field a few candidates.

    Unfortunately the question of lost revenue wasn’t too clear from the start (for those not already aware of it) when it was brought up by a member of the audience at the 12/15/09 meeting. As for the question in this article, the staff member who spoke to this point said “we will lose between $75,000 and $100,000″ if the date was moved up to June, 2011. I can’t speak for Bob Style’s viewpoint, but that’s the way it sounds on the video. And I believe that the question of whether or not it’s a “loss” is covered above. No matter how the costs are offset, that’s what was said at the meeting and that is the message that came across there. Up to the point that the council discussed it, there was still a question of whether or not this was a recurring revenue loss or a one time issue. Overall I’d say that the issue was addressed at the meeting and that the best interests of all were served.

    Toby, Matthew Pruitt and anyone else who still wants to take a pot shot at me,

    In so far as the annexation being over and putting the events of this summer to rest, I’m trying to move on. That is why I reached out to you at all in this manner. My character and reputation have been wholly assassinated by the baseless attacks I endured this summer. It is mind boggling that people are still asserting that I “lost” something. This wasn’t a candidate race, I am not planning on running for office and so I did not “lose” anything. Obviously I’m not happy with the annexation results since, as I see it, my way of life will be impacted. But I am, in fact, glad that I was able to represent so many like-minded people, and participate in the process, even if we are not in the majority of people who cast ballots this year.

    I am willing to let go of the events of the summer because I know that its best for everyone. Apparently it’s too soon for you, or maybe your just not capable of behaving like mature adults. I’d like to believe that its just the former and that you’ll take some time to consult with your spiritual leaders and come around to a community oriented approach someday very soon. One that is as you advertised to your supporters, inclusive of all citizens, does not create “two Kirklands” and most importantly does not include the petty divisiveness that dominated this annexation process from both sides.

    As Kathy pointed out above, it’s time to stop the bantering. My website will be replaced by a new one with a more positive message soon. Hopefully yours will too, and the Citizens for One Kirkland will be as vigilant in ensuring that the City of Kirkland keeps its annexation promises as it was in promoting the annexation.

    Have a great evening,

    Scott Brady
    Finn Hill

  • Scott Brady

    Toby et al,

    In my opinion there are three main points of the annexation effective date decision that need to be considered: 1) There is no way to know the exact impact of the sales tax revenue loss and an estimated $75,000-$100,000 isn’t very much money in terms of Kirkland’s overall budget. 2) Since a potential impact to revenue is known it can be planned and adjusted for well ahead of time. While any amount of money is very important, any potential loss or offset in revenue will be known and will likely not impact services. 3) Representation is now assured in the 2011 election cycle. Representation is a key issue and I’m glad that we’ll have a chance to field a few candidates.

    Unfortunately the question of lost revenue wasn’t too clear from the start (for those not already aware of it) when it was brought up by a member of the audience at the 12/15/09 meeting. As for the question in this article, the staff member who spoke to this point said “we will lose between $75,000 and $100,000″ if the date was moved up to June, 2011. I can’t speak for Bob Style’s viewpoint, but that’s the way it sounds on the video. And I believe that the question of whether or not it’s a “loss” is covered above. No matter how the costs are offset, that’s what was said at the meeting and that is the message that came across there. Up to the point that the council discussed it, there was still a question of whether or not this was a recurring revenue loss or a one time issue. Overall I’d say that the issue was addressed at the meeting and that the best interests of all were served.

    Toby, Matthew Pruitt and anyone else who still wants to take a pot shot at me,

    In so far as the annexation being over and putting the events of this summer to rest, I’m trying to move on. That is why I reached out to you at all in this manner. My character and reputation have been wholly assassinated by the baseless attacks I endured this summer. It is mind boggling that people are still asserting that I “lost” something. This wasn’t a candidate race, I am not planning on running for office and so I did not “lose” anything. Obviously I’m not happy with the annexation results since, as I see it, my way of life will be impacted. But I am, in fact, glad that I was able to represent so many like-minded people, and participate in the process, even if we are not in the majority of people who cast ballots this year.

    I am willing to let go of the events of the summer because I know that its best for everyone. Apparently it’s too soon for you, or maybe your just not capable of behaving like mature adults. I’d like to believe that its just the former and that you’ll take some time to consult with your spiritual leaders and come around to a community oriented approach someday very soon. One that is as you advertised to your supporters, inclusive of all citizens, does not create “two Kirklands” and most importantly does not include the petty divisiveness that dominated this annexation process from both sides.

    As Kathy pointed out above, it’s time to stop the bantering. My website will be replaced by a new one with a more positive message soon. Hopefully yours will too, and the Citizens for One Kirkland will be as vigilant in ensuring that the City of Kirkland keeps its annexation promises as it was in promoting the annexation.

    Have a great evening,

    Scott Brady
    Finn Hill

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Scott, thanks for making the changes you did on nokirkland.com.

    If a staff person actually said they would “lose” revenue by moving up the annexation effective date, then I think they misspoke. That whole discussion during the last council meeting was quite confusing, because people were asking about different things. I’d encourage you to call or email Tracey Dunlap and ask for clarification.

    However, I’m confident that the explanation in my first paragraph of this Letter to the Editor is correct — that the city doesn’t “lose” $75,000 in sales tax revenue by moving the annexation date a month earlier, but it doesn’t gain an additional month’s revenue, either.

    If you go back to the June 16 council packet (http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/Assets/City+Council/Council+Packets/2009/061609/3a_StudySession.pdf), starting on page 13 with the discussion on “Timing of Revenue Receipts”, it’s pretty clear that the change from July 1 to June 1 is revenue-neutral with regard to property tax, sales tax, and the state sales tax credit. The June 1 date is actually helpful with regarding to state shared revenues (gasoline tax, liquor taxes, etc.) because it allows the city to get a distribution on July 1 instead of waiting until September 1. The document doesn’t discuss when utility tax and gambling tax revenues become effective, but we can ask Tracey about those.

    I’ll stop bantering now. :-)

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Scott, thanks for making the changes you did on nokirkland.com.

    If a staff person actually said they would “lose” revenue by moving up the annexation effective date, then I think they misspoke. That whole discussion during the last council meeting was quite confusing, because people were asking about different things. I’d encourage you to call or email Tracey Dunlap and ask for clarification.

    However, I’m confident that the explanation in my first paragraph of this Letter to the Editor is correct — that the city doesn’t “lose” $75,000 in sales tax revenue by moving the annexation date a month earlier, but it doesn’t gain an additional month’s revenue, either.

    If you go back to the June 16 council packet (http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/Assets/City+Council/Council+Packets/2009/061609/3a_StudySession.pdf), starting on page 13 with the discussion on “Timing of Revenue Receipts”, it’s pretty clear that the change from July 1 to June 1 is revenue-neutral with regard to property tax, sales tax, and the state sales tax credit. The June 1 date is actually helpful with regarding to state shared revenues (gasoline tax, liquor taxes, etc.) because it allows the city to get a distribution on July 1 instead of waiting until September 1. The document doesn’t discuss when utility tax and gambling tax revenues become effective, but we can ask Tracey about those.

    I’ll stop bantering now. :-)

  • PJ

    I’m not terribly up on all this annexation business as I am new to the area. I do not have enough information to make a decsision as to whether I am for or against annexation but the fact of the matter is that it is here. All mud slinging aside, I have one observation. Since I have come here I have questioned cuts in services like removing trash cans in parks and codes are not being enforced etc. are met w/a heavy sigh and the response of “budget cuts”. If we can’t even take care of ourselves – how are we going to take care of our new additions?

  • http://pjnadalin@prodigy.net PJ

    I’m not terribly up on all this annexation business as I am new to the area. I do not have enough information to make a decsision as to whether I am for or against annexation but the fact of the matter is that it is here. All mud slinging aside, I have one observation. Since I have come here I have questioned cuts in services like removing trash cans in parks and codes are not being enforced etc. are met w/a heavy sigh and the response of “budget cuts”. If we can’t even take care of ourselves – how are we going to take care of our new additions?