Under the guidance of the Marchione Administration, the City Council is in the process of deciding "the price of city government" and how we will pay for it over the next two years. If you have something to say, consider emailing council@redmond.gov.
The Administration's proposed budgetary expenditures will exceed existing revenues and we will be asked to open our wallets and pay:
The Administration's proposed budgetary expenditures will exceed existing revenues and we will be asked to open our wallets and pay:
- A water/wastewater utility rate increase averaging 6% annually- forever.
- A 1% property tax increase- forever.
- A 28% increase in our General Fund transfer to the capital fund (possibly temporary)
 |
| Richard Cole Read his comments below this post! |
So what do we get for our money? Below, are a few of the larger expenditures the Administration is proposing to become, in the words of Mr. Cole, "a Great City":
- Downtown Park - $27 million
- Improved website - $300,000
- Preservation of City Buildings - $839,000
- Fire and Police overtime - $1.25 million
- NE Education Hill Fire Station - $11.8 million
- Emergency Generator for City Campus - $1.1 million
- Community survey on Budget innovations - $250,000
- Efficiency/Innovation contingency - $1.6 million
- Information Technology Plan - $3 million
- Compensation Analyist - $200,493
- *Operating Supply increase - $1.07 million
If you think you can help, try mayor@redmond.gov or comment under this post. The last Public Hearing on the Budget is 7PM, November 18 at City Hall.
Budget highlights are HERE. For major budget increases by department click here. Coouncilman Richard Cole has an email comment posted here.
The entire preliminary budget is found on this link the city website front page.
CC: Mayor & Council & staff
THE FOLLOWING 11/9 EMAIL FROM Mr. Cole was sent to me:
ReplyDelete"I responding as the Council Ombudsman. Thanks for taking all the time to study the proposed budget and provide us your comments. As you are aware, the Council is still working our way through the budget and no final decisions have been made.
However, I will comment on you statement about a utility tax increase. There is no proposed utility tax increase in the budget. There is a water rate increase proposed at a 6% average increase in 2009 and a 5% average increase in 2010. The utility funds are separate funds and the rates are set so that they break even. With these proposed increases, we still have some of the lowest water rates of any eastside city. There is also a pass through cost increase from King County Metro and a sewer fee increase."
-- Richard Cole, 11/9/08
Thank you, Richard. I made the changes in the post. The utility rate increases still averages 6% annually according to page iv of the Preliminary Budget Manual.
ReplyDeleteYes our water rates are low compared to other cities because we are blessed with aquifers. However, the maintenance of our wellheads (especially 1 & 2) is well into the millions. In addition the city has beefed up wellhead protection and regional stormwater plans with millions to protect the wellhead aquifer zones. Water may be "cheap" but at a significant expense to our CIP and General Fund budgets.
November 10, 2008 7:57 AM
Bob,
ReplyDeleteOf your first three items listed, only one of them is correct (#2). There is no increase in the utility tax. There is an increase in water and sewer rates to cover costs. Also there no permanent increase in the CIP fund. The $27 million for a downtown park requires a majority of funding from the private sector and other sources. The first step is for the Council to create a project which we can then go out and seek other funding. If the Council cut the project, there is no $27 million savings, because we expect money from outside sources.
Regarding the supply increases (), while $1 million is a big number it represents less than 1% of the budget. If we have only a 1% increase due to supplies, that is very good.
John
Mr. Mayor -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and additional information, John. One would have thought the Budget Manual's 441 pages would have been explanation enough. In any even, thanks for your clarification.
With regard to the errors, Richard already informed me of the utility rate vs. utility tax verbiage. I added his comments and mine to my "paperclip" blog posting. (I couldn't find the 5% rate increase for the second year in the Manual).
Last night I emailed you posts that were edited to clarify the 30% CIP increase as a 26% transfer. In parapraph 3 on page iv in Budget Highlights you begin with: "The new budget maintains..." The reader is left to decide if the "new budget" refering to the CIP component is for the Biennium (2009-2010) or six years (2009 - 2014). $18M is quite an increase over the previous 6-year CIP term. It's good to hear the CIP is not permenant for now, though it's kind of like drawing a line on planning map...once it's drawn, it's hard to remove.
Expecting is quite different from getting. I couldn't find hard figures documenting the private funds you are counting on to lower your $21M Downtown Park costs. My final concern about the $21 M park funding - besides lack of transparency - it's the ton of money required for a park having no determined location.
Regarding the $1M increase in your supply budget that still a lot of new supplies and a lot of taxdollar money. Just think if Mr. Bailey could cut half of his supplies increase. He'd have then found 1/3 of the savings you are requiring for this budget cycle.
Bob Yoder
FROM RICHARD COLE, CHAIR OF COUNCIL FINANCE.
ReplyDelete-- excerpt from a 10/31 email:
Bob,
"We have some large CIP projects that we believe are necessary to build a great city and increase our tax base. The biggest project is a downtown park for $27m. We hope that some of this money will come from the private sector. This project has been one our to-do list for many years. The previous administration was focused on building this at city hall, but that didn’t serve much of the community. We have not selected a site or a design, only looked at conceptual ideas. I believe that this park will give downtown a focus that will make it even a greater place to live and also attract a healthy business community. There will be hundreds of new dwelling units in the downtown in the next few years.
There are other CIP projects that will also improve the city. The purchase of the BNSF railroad right of way has been on our agenda ever since it was abandoned many years ago. We have signed a letter of understanding but we are still working on the price. The value in the proposed budget is $10M. This will be a real amenity to our citizens. Some of it may be used as a trail and incorporated into our downtown park, and when light rail eventually gets here, it will provide a corridor that is already in public ownership.
There are many other smaller projects that will go through a Council vetting and we’ll see what gets approval for this budget.
In my opinion, we have been seriously underfunding CIP needs and it’s time to switch the focus to building a community for the future. I’m extremely pleased with John’s leadership in proposing these projects.
While we have and will continue to borrow money as needed, our recent credit rating upgrade to “AAA” assures us that we will receive that best rates available. While the rating increase didn’t attract much attention, for finance professionals, it was earth shaking. It will provide us access to capital at the best possible rates. While at the moment there’s little money available to borrow, that will change."
-- Richard Cole (Richard's comment posted by Bob Yoder)