8/2/07 - Safety & Parks Tax Levy Propositions -Primary election

DID YOU KNOW?

Proposition #1 (Safety) & Proposition #2 (Parks)
Get ready! your absentee ballots should be in your mailbox by now! The PRIMARY is 8/21.
HOW WILL YOU VOTE?

PROPOSITION 1 - LEVY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING:

My wife and I know how we will vote ....with only one BIG BEEF.

Nine (9) firefighters are needed for the Overlake area mostly because of poor "response times". Did you know that "response times" have increased dramatically?

Nine (9) firefighters and an aid car are needed for NORTH REDMOND. Again, response times are up to 9 minutes!

Seventeen (17) police officers are needed for school security,traffic , cybercrime patrol, computer forensics, patrol and support. According to the mayor, only 4 officers patrol the city at night.

Officer Wilson informs me two (2) "School Resource Officers" (deployed for schools) will likely be returned in the 2008-2009 school year, with passage. One fulltime SRO for the High School and one SRO split between the two Junior Highs. The limiting factors for SRO's is staffing resources and deployment of staffing. But, SRO's are "guaranteed" for the immediate future if we pass the levy.

Chief Harris states that police today is much more than traffic and patrolling. Cyberspace crime is rapidly growing and needed technology is expensive. ID theft may now be replacing car vandalism & theft as Redmond's most common crime. Methamphetamine labs and related crimes are an ongoing problem.

PROPOSITION 1 safety services will cost the average homeowner & business about $145 per year. Our levy money will be dedicated to public safety and no public official can mess with it.

PROPOSITION 2 - LEVY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDING:

Parks Director Larsen suggested at the public meeting that Redmond Parks Department is no small business. The Department maintains and develops 40 parks -- totaling 1300 acres.
Parks also runs a Recreation program with over 200,000 citizens enrolled. Registration has been up 20% over last year. 16,000 citizens attended music events in the Teen Center last year.
Despite all our "showcase parks" the department has had to turn away 100 teams last year! Cricket, lacrosse,swimming, remote planes, Frisbee golf and other sports are competing for facilities used by established and expanding baseball, soccer, tennis, and high school swimming teams.

As witnessed from the loss of Perrigo Heights Woodlands to development, Open Natural Space doesn't come cheap and our children won't have the legacy of these Woods. The department needs to preserve what natural space we have left. They've acquired over 100 acres of natural open space parkland & 4 miles of trails recently.

Juel Park, Conrad Olson Park, Arthur Johnson Park and Slough Park are historic and natural. Funds are needed to develop & maintain these parks.

Director Larsen and our commissioners need funds to manage city lands, corridors, parks, creeks, rivers and other natural systems, including removal of invasive plants.
Levy money will go towards after-school programs, stewardship of our natural areas, a new staff member and greater availability to the Teen Center.

PROPOSITION 2 will cost the average homeowner and business $21.00/year.

YOUR VOTE COUNTS! PLEASE CAST YOUR BALLOTT BY AUGUST 21 ! THANK YOU!

Here's my BEEF and KUDOS to councilwoman Kim Allen for her leadership with Council!

I, and others, ask the next Council and next Mayor to please fund our critical SAFETY needs out of the General Operating Fund as the FIRST line item.

Annually 5% of our General Funds go to the Capital Fund (CIP). KIM'S TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Only after funding necessary SAFETY services should we move ongoing revenue into the Capital Fund.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM: BOB Chamberlin, Founder of the No. Redmond Neighborhood Email Group

You will recall that the last time they tried to raise our taxes they told us that if we didn’t give them more money there would not be enough funding to build and staff the additional fire/EMS facilities that we need (specifically for North Redmond). Most of us had to wonder three things about that.

1) How is it that they had sufficient funds to build themselves a huge and very expensive new city hall,

2) where did the money come from to give city officials (most notably the Mayor) a very substantial salary increase and

3) If the number of homes in North Redmond is increasing by a factor of four, and if those homes are paying far more taxes than the previously existing homes were paying why doesn’t the city have sufficient funds to provide the basic services for those homes that are normally expected?

Our response was that we resoundingly voted down their tax increase since most of us have the attitude that they need to better manage the over-abundance of money that has already been provided.This time the Mayor is suggesting that if we don’t vote to let them raise our taxes more than the current law allows there will not be enough funds to maintain the existing level of basic services. (Note that they have the legal right to raise our taxes every year anyway and they do not need our permission to do it. They just want a lot more than that.) In my opinion, this is what local governments do when they want more money. They cut funding for what the voters want rather than the funding for what the local officials want.There are ways that costs could be reduced rather substantially but the people who manage the money prefer not to even think about those methods. Here is an example. In my opinion, the City of Redmond Planning Dept. causes more problems than it cures. If you think about it, Planners tend to Plan whether that planning is actually needed or not and many of us feel that it is not. Each member of the Planning Dept. should be required to write a justification for his/her own job. After reviewing these justifications, cut about 80% of those jobs. Personally, I plan to vote, “NO” on Proposition 1.I wish I could say something like, “throw the bums out”, but Rosemary will not be running for Mayor so she is leaving anyway. As I recall, many years ago when Rosemary first ran for Mayor it was on a “No growth or very slow growth” platform and on that basis I voted for her. We have seen what that meant. I don’t like any of the current choices very much but some are better than others and in my opinion, the best of these is Marchione. Holly Plackett is for lots of growth. Her election web site calls for bringing in a lot more businesses and a satellite campus of the UW. This would, of course come with all of the attendant traffic and additional need for infrastructure (and of course, government). Also, I can’t say that I’m very fond of some of the organizations that are endorsing her. Robinson is supported by many of the folks who are currently a big part of what I feel to be the problem so I don’t feel at all good about him either.There are people on this mailing list who previously expressed an interest in running for Mayor but I have yet to see their campaign signs. - Bob Chamberlin, 7/31
Friday August 3, 2007 - 07:42pm (PDT)

COUNCILMEMBER KIM ALLEN:
Thanks, Bob!I want to take this opportunity to remind your readers that there are very stark differences between the mayoral candidates on public safety funding. When this budget was up for a vote, Jim Robinson wanted to pay for these fire and police needs out of our existing and ongoing revenues. As mayor, he will advance that policy. John Marchione wrote the budget that sent our fire and police needs out for a property tax levy increase, which was adopted on 12/19/06 by John Marchione, Richard Cole, Pat Vache, Nancy McCormick and John Resha. John Marchione made a policy choice to reserve those ongoing funds for capital projects like City Hall instead.Jim Robinson and I are supporting Proposition 1 because the public safety need is critical and because the majority of the Council decided that this was the only funding they would agree to. It was not our first choice.Vote on August 21!Kim Allen
Saturday August 4, 2007 - 02:22pm (PDT)

RICHRD MORRIS:

Hey Bob, I attended the community meeting at the City of Redmond on Tuesday, July 31st. The meeting was not well attended. I would guess the meeting notice did not arrive in mail boxes with much advance notice. I received my post-card invitatin on Monday, July 30th. Here are a few observations:1. There was not agreement among the City Council nor the Mayor for the budget. In my opinion, this struggle has spilled over into a repackaged levy proposition. Council chair Nancy McCormick described the budget process and the input from neighborhoods. However, the budget process did not result in consensus. This point was driven home by the Mayor and minority representative Councilwoman Kim Allen.2. The levy proposition has been re-tooled, but there was little enthusiasm from the staff presentations. The mayor continues to complain in public about the past year budget cuts for her administration staff. The allocation of funding the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was a source of disagreement.3. The Chief of Police offered no guarantees for a committed School Resource Officer. This contradicts what Bob states (above): "Officer Wilson informs me two (2) "School Resource Officers" (deployed for schools) will likely be returned in the 2008-2009 school year, with passage. One fulltime SRO for the High School and one SRO split between the two Junior Highs. The limiting factors for SRO's is staffing resources and deployment of staffing. But, SRO's are "guaranteed" for now if we pass the levy". Apparently, the wording on the ballot measure for the School Resource Officer was debated at length among City Council, the Mayor, the Superintendant of Lake Washington Schools, and PTA representatives. PTA representatives asked for quarantee for a committed SRO,however the Chief made clear that he needed flexibility in assigning resources as needed for effective operations.4. The Chief of Police described a hiring and training pipeline for new police officers. The Chief said Redmond competes with 500 other cities for hiring officers. The hiring and training pipeline can be up to 12 months. Thus, there is no quick fix to hiring and training new police officers. Naturally, the Chief needs flexibility in deploying resources for optimal effectiveness. The Chief distributed a summary of resource needs and the nature of crime fighting. 5. There were very few questions for our Parks Commissioner. However, a few comments were made about the choices for funding parks vs. funding public safety. Overall, the voters attending the meeting expressed some disbelief for the levy.6. There were a few questions about the tax bill for businesses. Councilman Pat Vache assured voters that businesses pay property taxes just like home owners. Mayor Ives explained that businesses pay a form of Business and Occupation Tax, in the form of an employee head tax. She stated the head tax is low compared to Bellevue. She also stated the head tax will be increased, as approved by City Council. My impression was that City Council was very timid for taxing businesses. However, in my opinion this approach increases the burden on city infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, stormwater, etc) without sharing the cost of maintenance. Given that the day-time population of Redmond is much greater than the night-time population, it is painfully clear that many people drive to work in Redmond. This trend is evidenced by the many extensions of Hwy 520 into Redmond over the past 30 years.Overall, the mood and tone of the community meeting was depressing to me. City Council appeared very cautious in selling this levy proposal. Mayor Ives was determined to see it through, but very dismissive of the council's budget choices. Professional staff seemed confident, but remained low key in their pitch. Mostly I had the impression that the Mayor wanted to pass the levy. Voters expressed some disbelief in the need for the levy, pointing to the new City Hall and the growth in our city tax base.
Monday August 6, 2007 - 11:52am (PDT)

YODER:

I was happy to learn the Proposition 1, Priority 1 Saftey campaign sign is recyclable. And, the Parks Proposition 2 campagin sign is recyclable. Both are made of milk carton materials and cost about $1.00 per sign, not counting labor which I think was donated by citizens or the fire/police unions.
Monday August 6, 2007