Advertisement

Kirkland City Council Annual Retreat March 19-20

By on March 3, 2010 in Archived, Government, Headlines

Heritage-Hall

The Kirkland City Council will hold its annual retreat on March 19-20 to receive results of the recently conducted community survey, discuss goals and performance measures, be given financial updates and discuss the 2011-2012 Budget outlook and process.  The retreat will be held Friday, March 19, 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Heritage Hall, 203 Market Street, Kirkland, WA and Saturday, March 20, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Kirkland City Hall, Peter Kirk Room, 123 5thAvenue, Kirkland, WA.  The meeting agenda and informational reports will be available online at www.ci.kirkland.wa.us on March 11. Citizens interested in providing comments to the City Council in advance of the meeting can email su.aw.dnalkrik.icnull@licnuocytic.

The Kirkland City Council typically meets the first and third Tuesday of each month.  To receive meeting agendas via email, go to www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/E-Bulletins and select “City Council Agendas.”

About Rob Butcher

Editor and Scribbler of Kirkland Views.
View all posts by Rob Butcher →
  • Bob Style

    The Council retreat will try to address the city’s budget problem. It will be an interesting juggling of priorities to come up with the money to pay for whatever services the city decides to fund. It will be a rob Peter to pay Paul session and I think the citizens are not going to like it.

    If changes are not made to the current budget, more services will be reduced. With the way the money was managed, about $3.8 million could have been saved to prevent service cuts affecting the citizens. But the Council decided to use the money for something else, that being annexation. With annexation, the money is not there.

    It brings up the following questions. When are they going to get the money and where will it come from? If they do not wait until the revenue from the Annexation Area (AA) is into the city coffers, the entire cost over the next two years will be on the backs of the current citizens of Kirkland, not the AA. If the Council does wait until the effective date, the city would have the additional revenue from the AA to help make up for the multi-million dollar shortfall. Remember, city service levels should be the same throughout the entire city, not just part of the city. It means we should expect additional cuts with the AA getting more services at our expense.

    According to the Finance Director and Councilmember Asher, the best guess to gear up for annexation and funding additional staff and facilities adds somewhere between $40 to $70 million to our current deficit the council created, and that’s without overruns.

    Why the rush to gear up for annexation when the money is not there? We could get started after the annexation effective date. At least that way, the AA will help pay for what they will receive from the city.

    At the core of the rush was the state’s reimbursement of sales tax. Failing to see the impact of what would happen if they selected the wrong date; the Council proceeded to appease the political interest of the AA, not the citizens of Kirkland. The reimbursement provisions do not start until the effective date of the annexation and do not cover what it takes to gear up. The promise made by the County to help with the annexation was political poppycock. The date the Council selected subsequently created a shortfall between when we could expect our money from the state and the cost for gearing up for annexation. So, the Mayor sent a letter to our state elected officials asking for $6 million to pay for gearing up. It was only a drop in the bucket needed to cover the $40 to $70 million dollar shortfall to pay for additional staff and facilities. The state said good luck. The money is not there. The County said good luck. The money is not there. There for what, paying for a financially disastrous mistake made by the Mayor that will cause us to pay more for fewer services? The Mayor and others did not look out for the citizens of Kirkland. Let’s hope they do better at the retreat.

    How many more service cuts and additional money will be needed to cover the bad management decision of those responsible including Mayor McBride? At the retreat, we’ll see who comes out ahead, the citizens of Kirkland or the politicians.

  • Bob Style

    The Council retreat will try to address the city’s budget problem. It will be an interesting juggling of priorities to come up with the money to pay for whatever services the city decides to fund. It will be a rob Peter to pay Paul session and I think the citizens are not going to like it.

    If changes are not made to the current budget, more services will be reduced. With the way the money was managed, about $3.8 million could have been saved to prevent service cuts affecting the citizens. But the Council decided to use the money for something else, that being annexation. With annexation, the money is not there.

    It brings up the following questions. When are they going to get the money and where will it come from? If they do not wait until the revenue from the Annexation Area (AA) is into the city coffers, the entire cost over the next two years will be on the backs of the current citizens of Kirkland, not the AA. If the Council does wait until the effective date, the city would have the additional revenue from the AA to help make up for the multi-million dollar shortfall. Remember, city service levels should be the same throughout the entire city, not just part of the city. It means we should expect additional cuts with the AA getting more services at our expense.

    According to the Finance Director and Councilmember Asher, the best guess to gear up for annexation and funding additional staff and facilities adds somewhere between $40 to $70 million to our current deficit the council created, and that’s without overruns.

    Why the rush to gear up for annexation when the money is not there? We could get started after the annexation effective date. At least that way, the AA will help pay for what they will receive from the city.

    At the core of the rush was the state’s reimbursement of sales tax. Failing to see the impact of what would happen if they selected the wrong date; the Council proceeded to appease the political interest of the AA, not the citizens of Kirkland. The reimbursement provisions do not start until the effective date of the annexation and do not cover what it takes to gear up. The promise made by the County to help with the annexation was political poppycock. The date the Council selected subsequently created a shortfall between when we could expect our money from the state and the cost for gearing up for annexation. So, the Mayor sent a letter to our state elected officials asking for $6 million to pay for gearing up. It was only a drop in the bucket needed to cover the $40 to $70 million dollar shortfall to pay for additional staff and facilities. The state said good luck. The money is not there. The County said good luck. The money is not there. There for what, paying for a financially disastrous mistake made by the Mayor that will cause us to pay more for fewer services? The Mayor and others did not look out for the citizens of Kirkland. Let’s hope they do better at the retreat.

    How many more service cuts and additional money will be needed to cover the bad management decision of those responsible including Mayor McBride? At the retreat, we’ll see who comes out ahead, the citizens of Kirkland or the politicians.

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

    The Kirkland City Council is to be complimented for holding the “retreat” within the city limits so that city residents can easily attend. Compare this to the Sammamish City Council, which held its retreat in Cle Elum for the express purpose of being “far enough away that reporters and residents have an excuse not to attend” (according to the city communications director; see http://sammamishreview.com/2010/02/17/out-of-town-retreats-are-okay). Sammamish has been chastised for this by the state Open Government Ombudsman (see http://sammamishreview.com/2010/03/02/sammamish-forum-march-3). Many other city councils and other agency governing boards make a habit of holding their “retreats” in far-away places. I’m happy Kirkland’s council supports the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act and respects our citizens enough to have the retreat locally.

    • Brian Tucker

      Toby-Where do you see that residents can attend? The announcement only states citizens can provide comments in advance. If it’s just the Open Meetings Act which would oblige them to open it, I hope that it’ll at least be closed to live public comment and participation. I’d like them to have a focused & uninterrupted “Study Session” at least once a year that’s longer than ~1 hour.

      • Rob Butcher

        Hi Brian,
        Toby is correct when he states that citizens can attend the retreat. Of course, if you do attend, you will need to remain on the sidelines as an observer, and you are correct that the above news release does not say the public can attend. The truth is the public can attend retreats and some do. If you wish to give the council your thoughts, it might behove you to do so by email.
        Thank you for your comments.

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

        You’re right, Brian — it’s because of the OPMA that the meeting must be open to the public. They could decide to have an executive session during the retreat, just like in a normal council meeting, and executive sessions don’t have to be announced in advance or be printed on the agenda. Also, the OPMA does NOT require active public participation or even a public comment period during a meeting — it only says that the public has the right to observe the meeting in a non-disruptive manner.

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

    The Kirkland City Council is to be complimented for holding the “retreat” within the city limits so that city residents can easily attend. Compare this to the Sammamish City Council, which held its retreat in Cle Elum for the express purpose of being “far enough away that reporters and residents have an excuse not to attend” (according to the city communications director; see http://sammamishreview.com/2010/02/17/out-of-town-retreats-are-okay). Sammamish has been chastised for this by the state Open Government Ombudsman (see http://sammamishreview.com/2010/03/02/sammamish-forum-march-3). Many other city councils and other agency governing boards make a habit of holding their “retreats” in far-away places. I’m happy Kirkland’s council supports the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act and respects our citizens enough to have the retreat locally.

    • Brian Tucker

      Toby-Where do you see that residents can attend? The announcement only states citizens can provide comments in advance. If it’s just the Open Meetings Act which would oblige them to open it, I hope that it’ll at least be closed to live public comment and participation. I’d like them to have a focused & uninterrupted “Study Session” at least once a year that’s longer than ~1 hour.

      • Rob Butcher

        Hi Brian,
        Toby is correct when he states that citizens can attend the retreat. Of course, if you do attend, you will need to remain on the sidelines as an observer, and you are correct that the above news release does not say the public can attend. The truth is the public can attend retreats and some do. If you wish to give the council your thoughts, it might behove you to do so by email.
        Thank you for your comments.

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

        You’re right, Brian — it’s because of the OPMA that the meeting must be open to the public. They could decide to have an executive session during the retreat, just like in a normal council meeting, and executive sessions don’t have to be announced in advance or be printed on the agenda. Also, the OPMA does NOT require active public participation or even a public comment period during a meeting — it only says that the public has the right to observe the meeting in a non-disruptive manner.