Question for the Kirkland City Council Candidates: Would you support raising taxes or reducing spending to balance the budget?
Kirkland Views is conducting an online forum for the Kirkland City Council candidates. This is an opportunity for the public to get to know the candidates, how they think, and what positions they hold on the issues affecting our city and the region. Questions submitted by the public are vetted by a representative advisory panel, sent to the candidates and their responses are posted on these pages. For candidate bios, candidate responses and more election information, please visit our Election HQ and Voter Guide pages.
Candidate Question Number Three:
Currently, there is a projected $8 million deficit in 2009. To balance the budget, either the citizens will be asked to pay more or the city must reduce spending. Which do you prefer? Specifically, name some taxes you would increase and name some programs you would cut in order to balance the budget.
Candidate Responses:
Martin Morgan – Position 1
No new taxes! The city must reduce spending. Why should the citizens of Kirkland continually have to pay more taxes? The city government must stop their tax and spend approach. Where is our rainy day fund? Increasing taxes should be an absolute last resort and only when there is a danger of not funding all of our basic services. The city has increased spending every year for the last 12 years, more than three times the rate of inflation. Why?
Specifically, we could roll the budget back to 2008 levels, freeze hiring and discretionary spending, and have a balanced budget without any tax increase.
Joan McBride (incumbent) – Position 1
The projected eight million dollar shortfall is for the entire biennial budget and includes 2010.
I support an approach that uses a variety of strategies to address our city’s budget shortfall. I believe a combined approach puts the least stress on the city; helps preserve our fiscal health and won’t cause disintegration of our levels of service.
So I support the following:
- Putting the utility tax question on the ballot (the utility tax would increase by 1½ percent – for an average household about $6 a month). This tax can’t be raised without a vote of citizens.
- I support using the city’s Revenue Stabilization Reserve. This reserve has almost a million dollars left and was created for just such a shortfall. I support cashing it out.
- I support further reducing levels of service. As I write this, the council is engaged in rating city core services to help determine which departments and services will see the most reductions. We are working to determine core services and those that are discretionary. It would be premature to name entire programs that should be cut if we haven’t yet, as a body, completed the ‘core services’ project.
- I support the notion of furloughs and other work schedule reductions.
- I support pushing out some funded projects on our capital improvement program to a later date and re-examining our benefit and compensation packages.
- In sum, while I want to see reductions in all programs, there is not one essential city service or program that I want to entirely gut at this time.
Finally, my pledge is to help guide our city during this economic downturn through my proven and steady leadership and by adhering to strong fiscal management practices. I am confident in our city’s future.
Penny Sweet – Position 3
The city must reduce spending in order to balance the budget. The worst time to raise taxes is during a recession when families must tighten their belts and reduce their spending. It is tough enough for both families and businesses to make ends meet without facing additional tax burdens from the city.
I would not propose increasing any tax. Rather, the city should actively identify ways to reduce costs further than they have already. Core government functions should be the first priority. We must preserve fire and police protection, and vital infrastructure like water/sewer service and traffic safety.
After that, all other services should be prioritized and reductions based on that prioritization should be made immediately. The city should look to contract for some services. For example, the citizens of Kirkland have placed a high priority on retaining our tree canopy and enhancing the city’s air quality. That is a laudable goal and we should do all we can to achieve it, including every effort to save the magnificent Sequoia tree on my neighbor’s property. However, retaining a city arborist when this service could be contracted to any number of reputable tree service companies is not the best use of city revenues. This is a good time to contract out since there are many companies (even in Kirkland) looking for work which should result in competitive pricing. In the future, as we grow, it makes more sense to provide these services with city staff, it will not be difficult to shift from contracted to internal services.
Brad Larssen – Position 3
The Council will need to identify essential services in order to develop a sustainable budget, where predictable revenues cover expenses. Ideally, decisions about raising taxes or lowering service levels would be made by the citizens of Kirkland through a public process. I do not believe in raising taxes in a recession, where citizens are already struggling financially. I will prioritize public safety, because that is the service most important to Kirkland’s citizens and their quality of life.
Karen Tennyson – Position 5
The $8 million deficit is for the biennium 2009-10, not just 2009. First, the City needs to carefully consider what additional cost-cutting measures can be implemented, without compromising public safety. Temporary closures of City Hall, is one option. Furloughs for staff would also be a way to save money. Renegotiating union contracts, as has been done in other cities, could also be part of the solution. The City could make these adjustments, without having to have a reduction in force that only continues to feed the recession. While these options are not pleasant, they could provide solutions to the continuing issue of budget deficits until the Council makes significant changes to the entire process that will result in balanced budgets.
It is difficult to cut programs, but that is inevitable, at least for the short-term. However, it would not be responsible for anyone to postulate which specific programs or positions would be reduced, suspended or discontinued, without careful consideration of input from the public, staff and other Council members, in the context of the budget in its entirety.
The City is limited in how it can raise revenues and over the past year, it used most of the measures available to it to balance an even larger shortfall. This is a tough time to raise taxes for citizens and businesses and should be the choice of last resort.
Amy Walen – Position 5
In order to balance the budget I would prefer to reduce spending and generate more revenue through sales taxes.
Generate more Revenue: Around 30% of the city’s revenue comes from sales taxes, yet many of us do our shopping in Redmond, Bellevue and Woodinville. I would help devise a plan to revitalize the Totem Lake area. I could envision a “University Village” style development from the Totem Lake mall area up to the Evergreen Hospital and medical buildings, with major retail at ground level, offices and affordable housing in the floors above. We should work with a developer to design a beautiful village that would attract “clean” businesses that would serve our citizen’s needs. This would enable us to do more of our shopping in our home town, and attract neighbors to our city to do their spending. We want to create a community where we can live, work, play and raise a family.
Cut Expense:
Creating an economic engine for our community is a long-term solution. In the short-term, we must do what the city is working on right now – cutting expense.
As a Council, we should set the priorities for the City’s resources then ask the staff to implement the policies we set. As a council member, I would work with the City Manager to prioritize- first, public safety (police, fire), then public services (water, sewer, garbage) and so on. Ensuring that the core services are provided is our ultimate responsibility. We should take this “priorities approach” to each activity that the city is involved in. In a time of economic hardship, our city’s staff members understand, as every householder does, that the maximum possible efficiencies must be obtained from the resources available. I would ask each department to identify where efficiency could be improved.
Matt Gregory – Position 5
This statement assumes all revenue is derived from the citizens of Kirkland which is not the case. Non-citizens of Kirkland also contribute to city income when: 1) they pay the purchase goods here which have a city sales tax (i.e. a vehicle); 2) they obtain permits for which there are fees (i.e. building applications); and 3) they obtain utility services for which there are taxes (i.e. rental properties).
a. Which do you prefer?
Neither and both. By that I mean, I don’t like having to ask citizens to pay more and I don’t like the city having to reduce spending, especially for services citizens have come to expect.. On the other hand, citizens may have to pay more if costs …….. and the city may have to reduce spending after evaluation of conditions……… There are always questions regarding fees and taxes as to whether they are adequate to cover the cost of providing the services. At the same time, the public has the right to expect their monies be spent in the most beneficial and efficient way.
b. Specifically, name some taxes you would increase and name some programs you would cut in order to balance the budget.
1) Tax increases:
The cost of providing services to handle such things as permits, private amendment requests, and recreation facilities should be adequately compensated by increased fees (taxes). Utility taxes should pay their way for infrastructure upkeep and continued services, and now the voters in Nov. will have the option of choosing to pay more rather than seeing other programs cut to make up any shortage.
2) Program cuts:
When I came to Kirkland in 1979, we did not have a Human Services Department. When I was first appointed to the Planning Commission in 1999, the Hearing Examiner position was relatively new, the Design Review Board was just established, the Transportation Commission had not come into existence and the Planning Commission was charged with only meeting once a month. As the economy is less robust, it is time to rethink what are essential services and how often should they be conducted. When the Houghton Municipal Corporation reconsiders its existence this Fall, there is potential for same savings depending on that vote outcome.
Doreen Marchione – Position 7
The deficit is for 2009-2010. The city will need to make up $4 million each year. This needs to be made up of a combination of reduced spending and a small tax increase. The Council has been going through an exercise in cutting expenditures and will most likely conclude that process on July 7. While I do not agree with all the line items they saved or cut, I would not want to start second guessing them at this point nI the process
The city should be using some of the one time money in reserves to invest in technology that will lead to reduced costs In the long run. They seemed to be watering down some programs rather than making real cuts. They were unwilling to suspend any programs until 2011. I think the community would understand if some programs were cut with the hope of restoring them in the future.
The Council needs to look at efficiencies. One example would be, Is it efficient for Kirkland to operate a small jail or should we be part of a large regional jail? Before we start the budget for 2011-2012, the Council needs to look to the future, involve the community and set their priorities
Tom Hodgson (incumbent) – Position 7
I prefer that the city reduce spending to match revenues. Our current system of revenue is cyclical and subject to the ups and downs of the economy. Unfortunately, the city did not bank adequate reserves to cover this extraordinary downturn and is now faced with unpleasant choices to balance the budget. The City Council has been informed that staff has identified $7 million in reductions of the $8 million needed. Council will review the plan and be asked to find an additional $1 million in cuts. I favor reductions to all programs except public safety and human services.
I have advocated for working with the labor unions to find ways to make up the shortfall by negotiating temporary wage and benefit concessions. Business and government organizations are using this method to retain their staff and avoid costly rehiring and retraining when the economy rebounds. I was told by a council member from Renton that his city negotiated a 2% reduction for city workers to be taken in a variety of ways including furloughs, and voluntary workweek reductions. I think this is a more humane way to endure this economic downturn and be better positioned for the recovery with valued workers in place and ready to ramp back up to full productivity.
Submit your Questions for the Candidates*
Submit your questions to the candidates either by email to kirklandviews@gmail.com or use the form below:
* Throughout the campaign, candidates will answer questions as submitted by you, the readers of Kirkland Views. If you have questions you would like answered by the candidates, email them to us at kirklandviews@gmail.com. Candidate responses will be posted on these pages.
Posted by Rob Butcher on Monday, July 6, 2009 at 11:59 am
Filed under Elections · Tagged with Elections
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that Councilwomen McBride says that she believes in fiscal responsibility, when in fact she has been on the city council for 12 years and has voted each and every time for tax increases. She has stood by while the city increased their budget at 3 times the rate of inflation for the last 12 years! If that is, “adhering to strong fiscal management practices.” We need a change in leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Position 1: Martin Morgan
Mr. Morgan answered the basic question of new taxes or reduced spending. It would have been nice if he listed which services he would cut but then again, neither did the most of the other candidates. When it comes to funding essential core services in a sustainable budget that serves all the citizens of Kirkland rather than special interest, we need substance from the candidates, not political puffing. I believe he’s a man of substance.
Position 1: Ms. McBride
Talking about political puffing, Ms. McBride tops the list. Her record of budget increases for non-essential government services is well known. She’s partly responsible for the mess we’re in. She puts the political spin on the $8 million shortfall by saying it’s only $4 million per year. Do we have to remind her that 2009 is more than have over so most of the $8 million will have to come in 2010?
She says “a combined approach [a term frequently used by politicians to avert personal responsibility] puts the least stress on the city.” Why didn’t she say “citizens” but used the word “city” instead? She needs to change her priorities.
She supports increasing the private utility tax at a time when utility cost is rising on its own without having government add to the problem. By state law, the tax is capped at 6% without voter approval to increase it. If approved, the new utility tax will be subject to inflation. We don’t need another tax increase that will be subject to discretionary spending by council.
She supports using Revenue Stabilization Reserves, a band-aid approach that will not solve the reason the $8 million shortfall was created and sets up the citizens for future tax increases to make up for drawing down the reserves. She supports further reducing levels of service but like the other candidates, does not specify which services. Historically, Ms. McBride serves special interest, believes all government services are essential whether they are or not, and finds it easy to divert money that could be used to prevent a reduction of essential services.
She does support furlough and work schedule reductions – from which departments?
She supports pushing out some funded projects on our capital improvement program to a later date and re-examining our benefit and compensation packages. That’s good.
She wants to see reductions in all programs but there is not one essential city service or program that I want to entirely gut at this time. She wants to keep open the option for more fees and taxes. She says she has adhered to strong fiscal management practices. I suggest it was to benefit the city, not the citizens, thereby creating the $8 million shortfall.
Position 3: Ms. Sweet
Good answer. Many of what she said makes sense. I still have reservations about where she would reduce spending but at lease she’s off to a good start. Her competition also had a good answer.
Position 3: Mr. Larssen
I agree with what he said; however, he hinted that tax increases were permissible as long as we were not in a depression. If we are not in a recession, tax increases could create one. If tax increases are proposed, how many, how often, and how much? Still, I feel he has potential.
Position 5: Ms. Tennyson
Like Ms. McBride, she ignores the fact that we are half way through 2009 and still have a $8 million shortfall the most of which will have to be accounted for in 2010.
She does list some spending reductions but is short of what is needed for a balanced budget. She believes it’s difficult to make reductions in the short-term. That indicates that may be she would restore the impacts of long-term budget increases.
She indicates it’s important to work with staff. Staff’s job is to do what our elected officials want, not just some of them but most of them. In reaching a final decision on an issue, staff will make recommendations that support Councilmembers who favor their interest, not necessarily the citizen interest. Working with staff is important. Working for staff is not.
She says it’s a tough time to raise taxes for citizens and businesses and should be the choice of last resort. She did not rule out doing it anyway. The city is “capable” of solving its budget problem, a word we heard before when the Mayor said the city was “capable” to absorb annexation cost. Is she willing for the citizens to absorb even a greater cost they what they pay now?
Position 5: Ms. Walen
Like other candidates, she generalized statements about spending reductions using terms like staff efficiencies, “temporary” reductions [that’s scary], and priority approaches for services.
It was good when she said “As a Council, we should set the priorities for the City’s resources then ask the staff to implement the policies we set.” At least in those regards she has her priorities straight. It leads me to believe she will be looking out for the citizens instead of special interest including those in government.
Raising sales revenues without raising sales taxes is a great idea. She’s on the money. It’s a great way to pay for essential services.
Position 5: Mr. Gregory
I like his position on sale tax and user fees that are similar to his opponent’s. He has some good ideas on spending cuts. On the other hand, he supports an increase in private utility taxes, a bad move at a time when utility cost is rising on its own without having government add to the problem. State law caps the tax at 6% without voter approval to increase it. If approved, the new utility tax will be subject to inflation. We don’t need another tax increase that will be spent at council’s discretion, money that may or may not be used for the benefit of all the citizens.
Position 7:Ms. Marchione
She has several things going against her. She openly supported tax increases even during these hard times. She was correct saying,”They [the council] seemed to be watering down some programs rather than making real cuts. They were unwilling to suspend any programs until 2011. I think the community would understand if some programs were cut with the hope of restoring them in the future”. Does that mean we will go back to business as usual?
Her position on government services is similar to Ms. McBride that almost all government services are essential. I would like to know more about what she thinks is essential thereby warranting taxing every one and what is not.
Position 7: Mr. Hodgson
He, like Ms. McBride, is responsible for the current $8 million shortfall. Can he make better decisions in the future?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is what Martin Morgan said… Specifically, we could roll the budget back to 2008 levels, freeze hiring and discretionary spending, and have a balanced budget without any tax increase.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0