By Bob Style
At 52 minutes and 18 seconds into the Council’s study session, Councilmember Asher questioned his ability to get to cause what was happening to the budget. He asked how come one week after the council fired 43 full time positions because of budget shortfalls; staff came up with $2.2 million dollars to pay for annexation preparation. That’s only for 2010. Staff predicted the amount needed in 2011 will be much more. Not to worry, staff will find a way to manipulate the budget much more to pay for it while, at the same time, reducing services by laying off more people.
In-house breeding among some Councilmembers to promote annexation has produced a mutated budget that has been manipulated and does not serve the citizens of Kirkland. It resulted in the reduction of services because the council chose to do so at our expense. Special interest prevails. The council has not been sincere with the public and it shows.
At the Council’s regular meeting which followed the study session, King County Councilmember Jane Hague said she talked with the new county exec about helping Kirkland absorb some of the annexation cost. Why was she there? She was invited. Will the County pay Kirkland for the $2.2 million the first year while at the same time paying for services to the PAA until the effective date of annexation, and then more the second year before the annexation takes effect. I seriously doubt it. She’s speaking into the wind hoping to stave off the repercussions of the next election.
Some Councilmembers are getting to staff. Given the past performance of Councilmembers McBride and Burleigh, I suspect it was them. If the money was there for annexation one week after the layoff, why wasn’t the money there to save the jobs of 43 employees that serve the public? If you too want to know what’s going on, don’t ask the Councilmembers that created this mess because you’ll get a mutated answer.