Advertisement

Letter | City Council’s inconsistency is consistent

By on June 8, 2010 in Archived, Headlines, Opinion

Many Council decisions are based on information they may or may not know.  Most of what they know is presented by staff who determines what is said and what is not.

Who knows what when is extremely important.

There were many meetings on the budget.  The best took place on November 17, 2009 followed by the meeting on December 1st, 2009. There were inconsistencies galore, enough to make your head swim.

The practice of manipulating data can best be seen by watching the December 1st budget meeting.  At about 52 minutes into the meeting, Councilmember Asher in an attempt to understand why there were so many city layoffs when the money was there to save their jobs asked, “What should I have asked …” (of staff before making a decision).  He wanted to know.  At the same meeting, Councilmember Greenway pointed out the money needed to save jobs and maintain service was a shortfall created by the transferring of $2.1 million from one fund to another, a fund to pay for annexation ramp up expenses.  Up until that point, the money was there.

We saw much of the same song and dance at the June 1st Capital Improvement Program (CIP) meeting when staff presented where the money was coming from to pay for it.  Massive fund transfers were proposed from previously untapped sources that included dedicated funds leaving our unfunded projects very much in the red along with adverse impacts to the general fund that pays for operations.  Our quality of life is in question.

Is it any wonder why the Council is so inconsistent?  We need more Councilmembers like Councilmember Asher to ask the same question he felt needed to be answered before making a decision.

Bob Style

About Robert L. Style

View all posts by Robert L. Style →
  • Amy Walen

    Respectfully, my perspective on the June 1st CIP study session was different. The emphasis was on acquiring property. We believe that a Public Safety building housing Police and Municipal Court in the Totem Lake area will be the most economical and efficient way of delivering safety services to the whole of the new city.

    There is a window of opportunity during which we will be able to secure the purchase of the property that we feel will serve us well. Our intention is to bond debt to pay for this investment. The bonding process takes time, and in the meantime, to secure our interest in the property we have identified, we will “borrow” money from our utility funds. Currently, there are funds in reserve that are dedicated to future investment in utility infrastructure.

    Once the transaction is secure, we will repay this money, with interest, as is required by the law. Within a short time of financing being finalized, annexation revenues will be available and we will begin payments on the debt. I'm satisfied that this use of our utility funds is efficient and responsible. Please contact me should you wish to discuss this further.

    Amy Walen

  • Bob Style

    My concern was and is who knew what and when did they know it? The new police facility is only one of many expansions needed to serve the “New Kirkland.” It is needed.

    The cost was known prior to annexation. How to pay for the capital facilities needs was not presented by staff.

    If the total cost for annexation was known before the vote, it may have affected the vote, especially if it was known how it was going to be paid for. The Councilmembers that pushed annexation didn’t want to expose the options to the public. Staff obliged.

    It was only after the annexation vote that staff proposed extensive shifting and borrowing as a way to pay for it. Shifting of funds (some $2.1 million) lowered our standard of living. It reduced our services. It locked doors at the parks and caused the removal of trash cans. We ended up paying more for less, something several councilmembers said should not happen. But it did. Were they sincere? What did they know and when did they know it?

    Now, after annexation, the budget hole is much deeper. Borrowing by bonding to fill the budget hole only makes the hole deeper; however, it’s the only way to make sure the annexation area pays at least their share of the cost.

    Someone said the first thing that must be done to get out of the hole is to stop digging. That was not an option for staff. The city is still digging.

    It takes time to negotiate the purchase of property. We, the public, don’t know when the process started. Police facilities needed to expand even without the annexation. I suspect negations may have happened even before the annexation vote. Since the purchase of property is discussed in executive session, we may never know.

    Why not insist that the manipulation by staff and Council of what is said and what is not said must stop. The degree by which the council shifts money around creates a shiftless Council. In the meantime, the total encumbrance on the taxpayer for operating and capital facility cost keeps growing.

    How much does the public know and when do they get to find out? The exclusion of information in the public sector is an art, not a science.