OPINION: Vote "No" On Public Safety Levy, Rosemarie Ives

Redmond Police in library watching over the Community Court

Credit: Yoder / click to enlarge

On July 16th, Redmond City Council is making their decision on the Public Safety Levy.  You may give them your comments and opinion at this email:  Council@redmond.gov  BY

Good evening Mayor and Council,

Opinion:  My name is Rosemarie Ives, former Redmond mayor, 1992 through the end of 2007

I am here tonight to discourage the council from proposing a new levy to fund staff and programs in both police and fire departments.  At a time with the highest inflation rate in 40 years, the threat of a recession, rising gas, food and housing costs, this is hardly the time for the City to ask the people to increase what they already pay in taxes.  An additional levy will worsen an already unaffordable Redmond.

Living within our means within our financial reality is challenging for us personally and should be the same for the City.  As mayor, I did the hard work in the 2007-2008 budget,  funding police and fire positions from the General Fund.  The bottom line is:   Its all about choices. 

In the case of the 2007 levy, the levy was the council’s choice but as they were told then , and you now know, using a levy to fund positions is unsustainable….thus the $3.5 million funding gap that exists now.    In 2007, the levy was subject to a 1% annual cap but the cost of public safety positions was growing at 6%.  I have little faith that staff will be able to construct a formula for the proposed levy that will fully fund these positions forever. 

The public considers police and fire as basic city services and thus should be funded first from the general fund which has gone up every year for the past 15 years, more than doubling /that’s an increase of 100% to over $200 million dollars.  And In the last three years, the City accumulated an almost $50 million dollar surplus.

As former councilmember Kim Allen said in 2007:  a levy lid was not the way to fund Fire and Police.  She went onto say that she doubted going to the public for a levy when so much money goes to the Capital Improvement Program.  She commented how she failed to see how a levy, relying on “maybe” money supported the Community’s highest priority.

The data that has been presented thus far does not substantiate the need for more revenue from an additional levy. 

As I stated already, over the past 15 years, the General fund increased  by 100% while  residential population  increased gradually and the number of jobs slightly increased, yet both police and fire departments budgets have each increased by 50%.  Overall, the” calls for service” numbers when looked at per capita have not increased.  Over the same period of time, our property taxes have increased by almost 100% going from $4400 to $8400.  And the 2007 levy initially cost $140 that went up 27% to $180 this year.  The 2022 levy will initially add another $340 for a total for a total of $520 that will go higher each and every year. The data speaks for itself!

I believe that going out to the public with a levy for basic city services that will continually increase   is a fear tactic.. A levy or a bond should be used for” like to have items”, not basics. 

I acknowledge  that there are some parts of the levy that are worthwhile to pursue especially around mental health.   One option for the council is to reduce the funding for Capital improvement Program by 1% equal to $5.5 million.  In an over $220 million dollar general fund, a little hard work in scrutinizing city expenditures and cutting just 5% will most likely produce sufficient funds for what is truly needed.  No levy necessary!

-- Rosemarie Ives, 7/5/2022