UPDATED: Significant Redmond Capital Investment Projects

For years untold, the CIP was short for "Capital Improvement Project."  The Birney Administration changed the meaning of CIP to "Capital Investment Project." 

Public Works Director Aaron Birt reported on several significant capital investment projects in Council's last study session.  Two Directors flanked the Mayor at the table during his presentation.  Mayor Birney took notes and didn't participate other than noting the beautiful the flowers growing along a capital park project.  

Birt reported the following significant capital investment projects (CIP) affecting Council's budget process.

>> Remaining City Hall construction debt service and contractual costs totaling $17,476,484 (2025-2030.) 

>> Redeveloping and expanding the Maintenance & Operation Center (MOC) penciled out six years ago expenditures of  $150,000,000, 2023-2026.  Birt told Council the funds were "already stashed under the mattress" and in the budget.  He then "shocked" council requesting an additional $75,000.  Councilmember (CM) Steve Fields pointed to the Office of the Mayor's office over council's deep concerns six years ago at $150M.  VP Councilmember Jessika Forsythe asked Birt how confident he was with $225M   She noted "decision fatigue" for having to cope with continued new "asks." Forsythe asked for Birt's $225M level of confidence.  He couldn't' promise a hard number; that his estimate would have to be in a range.   

>> Investments in the "Bellewether City Annex" in Overlake were significant.  Director Carol Helland noted a condo was purchased by the city for $618,000.  CM Stuart lives in Overlake and was thrilled about the building's opportunity for affordable housing.  Coumcilmember Osman Salahuddin agreed with Helland about it being a "mini-city hall" for business licensing and a police sub-station.  

Details and a description of the Bellwether Annex are found here.

-- Bob Yoder, 7/15/2024

Exciting Senior & Community Center Updates

 

  Do you see the black solar panels on the roof?  Will there be space for green roof tops?

Per Business Council meeting of 2/1/2022:  Senior & Community Center updates:  

1)  Vice President Vanessa Kritzer announced the possibility of Green (Roof) Tops at the Center.  President Jessica Forsythe has advocated for green roof tops for years.  Jessica asked staff for maintenance costs.  Eric Dawson, Public Works and project lead estimated a green top would cost about $15,000.  He felt it would easily fit in the budget. Hopefully, this will be the first of many green tops on City buildings.  

2)  Design costs of the Center are increasing with inflation.  The cost will be $52,000,000 if Council passes an ordinance to cover a $4,000,000 shortfall.  Public Works "value engineered" the project saving $2,480,000.  

3) Most of the funding is collected from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) $17,116,000 and a "councilmanic" bond. The CIP is funded by taxpayers. 

Total debt payments on the councilmanic bond are $32,217,000 over twenty years. Cumulative interest over twenty years is $8,264,000. The interest rate is 3%. President Forsythe was concerned about the rate rising.  Councilmanic bonds are not voter approved. 

Here's some upbeat news.  The councilmanic bond can be spent as one-time money for construction of the Center.  President Forsythe questioned having enough one-time money to "go around" towards other projects.  Parks Director Carrie Hite wasn't too concerned stating the 2022 CIP was "robust." The final decision is expected in June.

-- Bob Yoder, opinion, photo, Internet, 2/1/2022

OPINION:  Director Carrie Hite was released or resigned from her position just recently.  Council decided not to use the councilmanic bond to fund construction of the Senior/Comm. Center. Council may have decided the 2022 CIP was not robust and perhaps didn't like staff making budget decisions. Council President Forsythe was concerned the 3% interest rate would increase with inflation.  My guess is she has other places to use the bond in the immediate future. Losing Director Hite is a big loss IMO.

Updated: It's Estimated The Senior Center Will Re-Open In 2.5 - 3 Years

The estimated cost to demolish and rebuild is about $21 million; estimated cost to renovate is $20 million. Owing to the Critical Areas Ordinance, the new building will move 20-30 feet away from the river with possible impacts to the green house.

The Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Project engineer Eric Dawson updated Council on the status of the Senior Center during their December 3rd Regular meeting. In August, two stucco panels near the loading dock fell off (fortunately no one was hurt) and serious dry rot was found throughout the plywood of the exterior walls. Though the roof is about 30 years old it was in satisfactory condition. Owing to dangerous conditions, the Center was immediately closed on September 9th. Ms. Hite said many of the Center's activities were re-located to 1) City Hall (Bytes Cafe and the conference rooms, 2) Marymoor Village, Old Redmond School House, 3) Grasslawn Arts Center and other places. 

In response to Councilmember Jeralee Andrson's timeline question, Hite said it's estimated the Center will re-open in 2.5 years if renovated and 3 years if demolished and rebuilt. For sustainability Jaralee recommended the waste be recycled.

Ms. Hite suggested an opportunity to expand to 4-stories was possible -- for work force housing, affordable housing, an urban school, etc.  Councilmember Hank Myers said he was by no means in  favor of an expansion. He insisted on rebuilding ASAP; the audience clapped. It seemed a salute, with parting thanks.  (Hank lost to Varisha Khan in the general election by 66 votes; this was one of his last council meetings.)  Hank asked the City to do preventative maintenance on all their buildings on a regular basis, just as people do with their cars.

Councilmember Steve Fields agreed with Hank.  He noted black mold was regularly bleached out of the green house.and had anecdotal evidence someone pushed their hand through one of the walls. He recommended anecdotal feedback be a part of the preventative maintenance program. Councilmember Tanika Padhye asked if the public engagement process would be thorough and fast-tracked.  Ms. Hite suggested a few Public meetings would probably be sufficient.

Council President and Mayor-elect Angela Birney was "encouraged that to rebuild or to fix is about the same, so at least that doesn't seem to be a big task to go one way or the other."  She said over the years she learned a lot about what improvements Seniors wanted in their Center. Angela looked forward to establishing partnerships.  She was "a little sad about the 2-3 years."

Vice President Councilmember David Carson said it was "a chance for amenities to be added."  He was not for renovating or remodeling.   

Hank Myers calculated the city already had the funds to re-build saying $15 million was authorized for Senior Center improvements in November of 2018.  (Unfortunately, the improvements weren't done until it was too late.)  Hank also noted the city was sitting on $6 million of one-time money from the 2017 -2018 budget. Thus, with the $15 million, there's money in the budget to re-build. Hank received another clap.  He was one of my favorite Councilmembers.

Reported by Bob Yoder
12/4/2019

UPDATED: Redmond Council To Hold Special Meeting on Budget

President Richard Cole (3rd from left)

UPDATED:  This evening, 11/30,  the Mayor is asking Council to review and possibly vote on the proposed budget and the Tax and Fee increases that are budgeted for the next two years (2011 -2012).  You may comment by email.


 PROPOSED TAX AND FEE INCREASES:
>  1% assessed property tax increase of $291,777
>  $2,980,533 Salary, Wages, Benefits increase includes 1% ($680,015) cost-of-living increase.
> 10% Water Rate increase for city
> 14% Water Rate increase for Novelty Hill Service Area
> 28% Wastewater Rate increase for Novelty Hill Service Area (2011 only)
> 4% Wastewater Rate increase for city.
> $240,000 Business License Fee increase (BITI)
> Stormwater Capital Impervious Unit Charges increase to: $8,539 (Overlake) and $5,435 (Downtown)
> Stormwater Capital Impervious Unit Charge for developers increase to $958/unit.
> Impact Fees on LWSD and private developers 1.64% (FIRE), 1.24% (PARKS)
> 50% reduction in the Flower Pot Program (open for reconsideration tomorrow)  Read More.

READ MORE >>

Mayor John Marchione's 2010 Budget Report and Interview



Mayor John Marchione



"Inside Redmond"  

Mayor John Marchione's
 2010 Budget Report  - a conversation with Deputy City Administrator Jane Christenson

The Mayor's 2010 budget interview with Deputy City Administrator Jane Christenson
The Mayor's 2011-2012 Preliminary Operating Budget Written Report

The Man behind the Numbers (besides his boss)

Opinion: The City Council Meeting of 7/28 had some interesting moments, even though I had to watch it "On Demand" at http://www.redmond.gov/ . A few of the issues discussed were:

• How to prepare for a $656 Million shortfall (over 50 years) for constructing and repairing new municipal buildings e.g. for the Police, the Senior Center, the Old Redmond School House and others. YES! if you don't believe the number, contact mayor@redmond.gov.


• Deciding if the revenues from the "sales tax on construction" will be deposited into the General Operating fund (Mayor's choice) or the Capital Improvement fund. (Council's choice).


• the "Biddy" tax. It's a tax on businesses for making required transportation improvements. I can't spell the "Biddy" acronym so I won't jabber on.


• Increase transfers from the General Operating to Capital Fund beyond the traditional 5% amount? Most say, yes.

MEETING DYNAMIC: During the Council and Mayoral conversations and presentations by staff, an interesting dynamic was observed. Since most of the meeting was about the Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) the Finance & Information Services Director (Mike Bailey) gave the initial presentation. It was his usual "wonkish" delivery where he endlessly "fumbles" and "mutters" about his data and the process. But, then, oddly, the Mayor acted wonkish, too. He had glasses on (glasses?) and got really technical with the financials. Normally, Mr. Mayor doesn't take on a defined administrative role....the Mayor is usually quiet, may reinforce the main points and doesn't get involved with Council's deliberations. At the end of deliberations Mr. Bailey didn't mumble, fumble or bumble. Rather, Mr. Bailey summed up council's main points with stunning conciseness, clarity, financial acumen and pointed attention to council politics. He recommended Council not make a decision tonight but send the CIP topics to "committee". Richard Cole's "Council committee", said the Mayor. Done.

THE TAKE HOME: How refreshing to observe the Finance Director's intelligence in action, LIVE on camera. And Mr. Mayor's presence was anything but diminished. Transparency is enlightening. The Finance Director is NOT the bumbling, muttering bureaucrat wearing the green visor of a bean counter we may think. He's an ACE and we thank MR. MAYOR for hiring him. Let it shine, oh, let it shine!

Council and Mayor "rap" about the Budget

Last night, the Council and Mayor held a long rap session on the City budget.

Of the General Operating Fund and Capital Fund, which do you think is the most political in our community? According to Council President Nancy McCormick, the Capital fund wins. Hmmm. She must be thinking about our newer $50M City Hall. Mayor Marchione would prefer to put large Capital expenditures out to vote.

Marchione's staff also suggested simplifying transfers to the Capital fund from the General Fund. Staff asked to limit transfers from six "bucket" allocations to 3 buckets. The three proposed capital buckets are: 1) Parks, 2) Transportation, and 3) General Government. As compared to the present transfer method, "Parks" allocation would increase by 20%, the "Transportation" bucket would increase by 20% and "General Government" (Fire, Police, Government) decreases 35%. No decisions were made.

Halving the buckets would cut out council's cherished "Council Contingency" bucket. Eliminating this bucket suggests of a Council "working consensus" and trust in the Marchione Administration, qualities that were lacking in the prior Administration. Ostensibly, the Marchione Administration would have greater flexibility and control.

Much talk centered around establishing a "sinking fund" to plan for replacement of the Public Safety Building (PSB) and Senior Center. Mr. Cole considered the PSB a legacy building and wanted to start storing away money for its eventual replacement in 20-30 years. Councilmember Kimberly Allen was cautious about creating "silos" to store biennium surpluses. Councilmember Pat Vache' went with the flow of the conversation speaking in generalities. Both are up for re-election.

1.3% annual property tax/levy increase approved in Council's budget

Council approved the 2009-2010 budget 7-0 this week. They approved the 1.3% property tax*/levy lid increase 5-2, with Council members Kimberly Allen and David Carson dissenting. (pictured here)

According to the "Budgeting by Priorities" manual General Fund revenues are expected to grow approximately 3% over the next two years to $142 M. The $142M does not include the Capital Budget which is expected to grow by 8% to $234M to pay for the massive infrastructure expenses we see around town. The city has a AAA bond rating and is taking advantage of their superior rating to borrow approximately $30M for the Bear Creek Road Extension.

The biggest bone of contention on the Budget was the 1.3% property tax/levy increase. Ms. Allen and Mr. Carson could not find a clear need in the budget to justify the tax increase. The increase averages about $15/year for an above-average priced home. Most council members felt they needed the money to manage inflation. The Mayor felt he needed the money to "steady the foundation, to keep from listing one way or the other." Mr. Mayor kept talking about "a hole" Redmond government would dig if the tax didn't go through. He referenced Kirkland's problem.

Mr. Carson and Ms. Allen where more concerned about the average citizen scraping by in this historically weak economy. Even though the tax was minor, historic, prolonged unemployment and precipitous housing prices are exceptional times for citizens. Ms. Allen felt the city had enough money for the next two years to justify cutting out the property/levy tax.

Council President McCormick justified the tax increase to the cost of inflation of the city supplies. Approximately 80% of the cost of Redmond Government is paying salary and benefits to city workers. Council passed a $538,000 Human Resource "compensation program" to manage salary reviews, improve efficiencies and be more proactive. Council member Vache, who has career experience in human resource contracting felt the program was expensive but went along with the Mayor.

Council member Myers was the only council member that made a concerted effort to find specific ways to cut the budget. He recommended cutting: 1) the $207,000 cost for a "road button reflector truck", 2) $20k travel and tuition for council, 3) $100k/year for a compensation analyst and 4) a review of pub/private $570,000 spent on community events (Holiday Lights, Derby Days, etc.)

Mayor Marchione has invaluable experience in financial administration and is building an reputable and effective finance team -- Micheal Bailey, Dir. of Finance and Melissa Files, Finance Manager. The AAA city bond rating is a tribute to their excellence. Mr. Marchione's team has a goal of saving $1.6M over two years through greater efficiencies.

Council Finance Chair Richard Cole efficiently ran the "Budgeting By Priorities" program. Mssrs. Margeson and Myers were on Mr. Cole's Finance Committee. Six "Results Teams" of six staff and one citizen each ranked the budget priorities. Mr. Mayor appointed the six citizens. If citizens want to have a direct influence on council and staff in shaping the budget next biennium you may want to notify the Administration. of your interest in a Results Team.

*Mr. Bailey, Dir. of Finance wrote a Letter of Clarification on 11/25/08. He described the 1% property tax. No mention was made of the parks & safety levy lid tax increase. (.3%)

The entire budget is online here.

The Mayor's Budget is shaping up to be a winner!

When arriving at City Hall for the Budget Public Hearing last night I noticed, besides few cars, some little changes that indicated to me our city was indeed "going forward" under the John Marchione Administration.

• City Hall outdoor art by Carpenter is now lit up by new overhead lights. (I don't understand why the Ives Administration never did this.) It's absolutely beautiful at night now. Without light, the crystals don't live. An arts commissioner at the meeting attributed the improvements to the Administration.
  
• FOCUS Magazine was reduced in size by 1/3. It's now more readable and costs taxpayers less. And I'm reading it more! Copies are at the front desk.
  
• Michele McGeghee - City Clerk, swore in two Design Review commissioners. The city attorney wasn't needed - saving taxpayer dollars.
  
• A well lit, well displayed art exhibit was positioned at the entrance to Chambers. View of the exhibit was well placed, convenient, accessible and attracted many visitors.
  
• Council may have enough funding to hire a receptionist for the City Hall front desk.

During the Public Hearing whining and complaining citizens were not to be heard! Compliments were frequent. Council and Mayor are not planning to raise business taxes. The President of the Chamber of Commerce sounded as if she received an Oscar - thanking everyone copiously - from the Mayor, to council, to multiple staff members. ARCH requested more funding for affordable housing. The Historical Society and Arts Commission spoke to thank and please the Council. A child abuse prevention non profit asked for support. The Washington School Foundation requested support.

I gave my blog a plug. Shoot! why didn't I request funding too!? Mr. Bailey, Finance Director and Melissa Files, Finance Manager were thanked for their tremendous efforts the budget. Mr. Mayor made some great hiring decisions. Councilman Richard Cole is well deserving of recognition and appreciation for his leadership as Council Finance Chair. Richard introduced the "Budgeting by Priority" model to the Mayor and is running Council budget discussions with aplomb. Finally, I asked that the Final Budget be edited to include language requiring that the 6.4% CIP transfer (increased by 30%) remain temporary. Historically, the annual transfer has been 5% of the General Fund - several Millions less.

Attendance at the Hearing was low ~ 7 speakers. In times of economic strife, this says a lot about the confidence citizens have for the City in managing our money. Finally it speaks for Redmond's general affluence, Redmond $7 Billion economic engine (R. Odle) and our willingness to pay for a "Great Ctiy."

UPDATED: Council to decide on a $27 Million "Downtown Park" - Did you know?

OPINION: Did you know about the proposed $27 Million "Downtown Park"? According to Council Finance Chair, Mr. Richard Cole, a Downtown Park has been planned for years.

Several comments have been posted. Here's a brief breakdown of the proposed Parks budget:

In this budget cycle, the total proposed Capital Fund (1) for Parks is $75,000.000 (2) over the next six years. Parks General Fund is budgeted to go up 19% to $12,137,784 over two years. Parks salary and benefits alone will increase by just over $ 1 Million. Council has approved many items of the General Fund increase and will converse further on others. However, $43,060,000 is proposed for capital projects (2009-2014) and is yet to be approved by Council. The Downtown Park and a $10K linear park are two of the projects.

HAS THE PUBLIC BEEN FULLY ENGAGED in the Downtown Park budget process? Doubtful. After two public workshops many months ago, six "Results Committees" - each with 1 citizen and staff - were formed by the Administration. These committees evaluated and ranked budget requests (3) for the six "priority areas" defined by the Administration. The Results Committee responsible for evaluating the Parks requests was composed of one citizen and six city staff. The Parks & Trails Commission , Arts Commission and PED-Bike Advisory Committees were not included in this "Budget for Priorities" program. It seems questionable that only one citizen in the absence of the Commissions is fully adequate to evaluate and rank public requests.

In coming sessions, Parks Director Larsen will present the Results Committee's $43,060,000 Park's capital request to Council, as follows:

1. $27,000,000 in new funds to build a Downtown Park.


2. $10,000,000 is requested for acquisition of the BNSF railway. (See an awesome rendering of the corridor promenade)


3. The council will also decide on $1,060,000 for the redevelopment of Anderson Park development and Slough Park designs; and


4. $5,000,000 to buy and build new trails.

The location for the Downtown Park is "undetermined", but my guess it will be part of the BNSF railway Corridor. The BNSF linear park corridor will feature a regional trail, rain gardens, landscaped promenade with pedestrian seating and future plans for light rail transit. 3-4 roads will cross through the corridor for traffic circulation.

If you want to comment to the city try emailing: Parks/Trailz/Arts celarsen@redmond.gov or ParksAndTrailsCommission@redmond.gov.

Footnotes:
1. The city's name for the "Capital Fund" is Capital Improvement Fund or C.I.P.

2. Dollar amounts have been rounded. Verify here

3. Bureaucratic lingo for 'budget requests" is Requests for Offers or offers.

View the index for the preliminary city budget HERE! Outstanding issues are placed on the "issues table" for later review by council.

CC: Council & Mayor & Parks Director Larsen, 11/09/08

UPDATE: Whoever said "paperclips don't count" in city budgets?

OPINION: Whoever said "paperclips don't count"? [Four citizens have commented to this post]

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:

1. A water/wastewater utility rate increase averaging 6% annually- forever.


2. A 1% property tax increase- forever.


3. A 28% increase in our General Fund transfer to the capital fund (possibly temporary)

Businesses won't endure tax increases. The City's AAA credit rating gives credence to the City's new borrowing program. Building debt is intended to counter inflation and spread growing infrastructure costs to future generations.

Richard Cole
Read his comments below this post!

Redmond citizens salary averaged about $89,300 /year in 2004 (R. Odle), so most of us probably won't gripe. Right? The 6% utility rate increase is probably most noticeable by those making less, or are unemployed, as I. Councilman Richard Cole , Finance Chair, figured the 1% property tax increase would cost him only about $6-7/year. He's got a condo. The capital fund increase will come out of our pockets and from other revenue sources. It has potential to stress family budgets the most in the future. My family is now coping with the high cost of living in Redmond and depressed economy. We are planning to leave Redmond after our daughter graduates from RHS. The beginning of an exodus of low-medium income families may come. Building "a Great City" has it's costs.

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":

1. Downtown Park - $27 million


2. Improved website - $300,000


3. Preservation of City Buildings - $839,000


4. Fire and Police overtime - $1.25 million


5. NE Education Hill Fire Station - $11.8 million


6. Emergency Generator for City Campus - $1.1 million


7. Community survey on Budget innovations - $250,000


8. Efficiency/Innovation contingency - $1.6 million


9. Information Technology Plan - $3 million


10. Compensation Analyist - $200,493


11. *Operating Supply increase - $1.07 million

OOPS! *Pardon me! - a $1.07 million increase in supplies certainly doesn't make for a "Great City"! It does say something about the "price of our government". At the last council session Mayor Marchione alluded to Supplies as "paper clips." For the benefit of Redmond taxpayers, I hope he'll take a closer look at his supply.
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

A quest for "open government" in the Parks Department

Craig Larsen, Director of Parks & Recreation, Trails, Art

OPINION: Several months ago, the Parks commissioners sat nervously in council chambers in front of the full Council, Mayor, Directer Larsen and staff . They had the daunting and uncomfortable task of asking Council for a $40 million park bond! The bond request was quietly denied.

The timing of the commission's request was unusual in that it pre-empted our public "Budget by Priorities" meetings. In addition, the public passed a parks levy only a year ago. It wasn't until the Budget was released a week ago that I discovered the Administration's motive this huge park bond request. They need $37,000,000 to build two Downtown Parks. I'm all for creating a "Great City" but it would have been nice to be included in the Parks & Trails Commission planning process. We, the public did not receive the benefit of transparency and "open government" in this case. The government did not receive the benefit of our input.

Last night, I went to the Parks and Trails Commission meeting. During the weeks of November 10 & 17th the Council will consider a $43,060,000 hike of the 6-year capital budget for Parks. It was interesting the commissioners didn't once mention the park budget. Most of the discussion was about a proposal to change Cleveland Ave. and Redmond Way into 2-way streets .

Director Craig Larsen said a couple of months ago he had been planning to televise 2-3 parks commission meetings per year on RCTV-21. I keep waiting. Mr. Larsen schedules the Arts Commission 3-times per year for RCTV and their budget is tiny compared to the Parks $87,000,000 program. Wouldn't you want to dial in on occaision? Staff recently committed to posting commission meetings without 2-3 month delays. Current commissioner names and titles are being updated on RCTV and current commissioner names are now posted online. Trasparancy may be improving. I ran into Councilman Hank Margeson at the Digital Arts Festival. He had heard the Parks & Trails Commission wouldn't be holding any or their meetings on RCTV-21. I hope Hank heard wrong. The public has asked for transparency over and again; and Mayor Marchione has agreed to the values of Open Government. I'm hopeful and trusting the Administration will someday lift the darkness and move the Parks & Trails commission and public forward.

Your comments on the parks budget are welcome. Email Park Director celarsen@redmond.gov or ParksAndTrailsCommission@redmond.gov.

Footnote:

The Budget breakdown is here

cc: Parks,Trails,Art Director Larsen, Mayor, Council and commissioners

Council passes the Bear Creek Parkway Extension construction project!

OPINION: Council conversations and the ensuing vote on the $23 million "Bear Creek Parkway Extension" construction project on 7/15 was interesting, yet challenging to follow. I had to contact the City Clerk to confirm the final 4-2 vote FOR the project.

All councilmembers (Mr. Vache was absent) wanted the construction project approved, but two councilmembers Allen & Cole were seriously upset with the proposed alignment. In the beginning Councilman Carson went along with Mr. Cole's original stance against the project. By the end of the debate only Carson and Allen voted against the project. Cole reluctantly voted for it.

Allen and Cole (Carson agreed) were serioulsy disappointed with the road route and the small number of trees that would have to be removed at the Saturday Market and Heron Rookery. (According to Planner Cathy Beam and a city consultant the herons have been scared away by crows and eagles and the nests aren't active). Most thought the route more costly than the other two options. After confusing conversations by most councilmembers Mr. Cole decided to change his vote at the last minute to favor the alignment. The construction project passed 4 -2.

Mayor John Marchione shared his opinion after the vote:

"Regarding the Bear Creek Parkway route decision, it was made more than
two years ago. [The below PHASE 1 and 2 aerial photos show the Bear
Creek Parkway alignment]. You can see that a few trees to the north of
the rookery and a few to the west of the Saturday Market are removed. The
option that was not selected was cutting through the open space to the west
of RTC (or extending 159th on the attached photo). In my judgment, this route damaged wetlands, reduced wildlife habitat and produced less traffic improvement. Reasonable people can disagree which route was better. Either way, it was a tough choice for Council, but it is time to more on."

I am excited the project passed owing to Ms. McCormick's firm statement, we would be in total gridlock without the extension. The city will have to plant new trees to replace those removed. When completed, the new Bear Creek Parkway extension will feature a street connection from Redmond Way through Leary Way to Redmond Town Center. This project is the first of several City projects to enhance transit, vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle movement in downtown Redmond.

The roadway will include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, street parking, and bicycle lanes. Pedestrian features include a 14 foot wide sidewalk with street trees and
pedestrian plaza and lighting. Landscaping amenities will add connections to the wooded area south of 161st Street and at Redmond Town Center. A new bike/pedestrian trail through the wooded area will connect the 520 and Sammamish River trails to the 161st Street to the Park and Ride.

The project also includes the first segment of the new downtown sewer and an upgrade to the Leary Way storm treatment pond. The total $23M transportation and stormwater package will be funded from Capital (CIP) funds. Every year 5% of our General Operating Fund transfers to the Capital CIP fund. Thus, this expensive project will be paid by "today's dollars" for use by future citizens years from now. I recall Mr. Marchione (as councilman) once recommended borrowing as a tool available to fund the Extension & other big projects since costs would be spread out to future generations of users.

The economic vitality of Redmond's Downtown will be reinvigorated. Click on the links to see the November 2007 color, aerial photos of the proposed project layout, Phase 1 and Phase 1 and 2, for the Bear Creek Parkway extension.

Construction for the Bear Creek Parkway Extension will likely occur in phases. Click on the link to view the proposed schedule for the Bear Creek Parkway Extension construction timetable. With the passage of this project the "proposed schedule" needs to be updated and I hope will be posted on the front page on the city website.

--------------------------------------------------------
Additional Project Information:
Project information
Key environmental issues
State Environmental Policy Act

OPINION: Marchione administration's $40 million parks bond proposal-- a hoax?

I am very disappointed the Marchione Administration and 6 park commissioners would even CONSIDER a preliminary $40,000,000 parks bond for 2009. Specifics of the proposal were described in detail by Parks Director Larsen (photo above) at the last Council study session. (Please look for "comments" below this story for elaboration).

Citizens just finished spending 6 hours of their evenings participating in Mayor Marchione and Richard Cole's "Budgeting by Priorities" (BP) workshops. When Parks Director Larsen discussed "the number" ($40m), I never heard him refer to the BP workshops or citizen requests for more park services. I think it was a councilmember who remembered a vague request for more natural open space.

Did you know, Council recently approved $2,300,000 in taxpayer money for 0.9 miles of park "trail" --a 15 foot-wide black-topped 'road'? (Click on the title of this story to read all about it. )

Only last year, the Council proposed and passed a $637,122 park bond and allocated an additional $605,000 of capital improvement funds (CIP) to our parks and recreation program. In addition Council passed city-wide impact fees on developers. For an eye-opening summary of where our 2007 park levy and capital dollars will be spent READ THIS.

As a result of last year's park levy, our property taxes increased on average $21/year. The proposed $40,000,000 park levy alone would increase our property taxes an average of approximately $140/yr per household. The increase is over 6.6 x last year's increase! It's almost equivalent to last year's "fire & police" increase of $143/yr/household.

Gas is over $3.60/gallon, fruit and vegetables are now priced by "the each" rather than "the pound", we burn gas in traffic jams because city roads can't keep up with growth, and the needed fire station in North Redmond isn't built. The list goes on.

Yes, you can read Richard Morrises informative reports here about the splendor of our parks. They truly are what makes Redmond, Redmond. But, at what cost to further the park system?

Did you know, every year 5% of our General Operating Fund is transferred to our Capital Fund? Most interestingly, 19% of the total 2007 - 2012 Capital Fund of $216,000,000 is allocated to Parks! Yikes! That's $40,000,000!

$40M (proposed bond) + $40M (capital) + $637K ('08 levy) = $80,637,000 total park & rec. budget allocation -- wished for by the Marchione Administration in 2009... This isn't counting impact fees.

My goodness! This can't be real! Is it a hoax? I feel manipulated. When citizens cry "NO" to this incredulous $40M bond proposal the Council is then positioned to say "NO" to many of the citizen's requests for funding their projects. It appears the Marchione administration is "conditioning" us to lower our expectations for our budget priorities. In the least, he's applying the fundamental principle of negotiations: "start high".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REF: All of my research was taken from Links to city documents on the sidebar of this blog (scroll down) and by searching "levy" in the blog search engine .

CC: Council, Mayor, Parks Director, Parks & Trails commissioners

High stormwater utility rates under review by council

Two weeks ago past councilman Richard Grubb spoke to council during an "Items from the Audiance talk" about the high costs of stormwater management in Redmond. He was concerned that stormwater fees have increased from $3.00/month in 1988 to $16.56 today.

Granted, stormwater treatment helps to remove sediments and pollutants from run-off before it gets into Bear creek and the Sammamish River. In addition, the city uses stormwater fees & grants to pay for stream and wetland restoration projects for new developments and along Bear & Evans Creek and the Sammamish River. Expensive retention ponds have recently be intalled along the Evans Creek industrial basin. In additon, I think fees have been applied to permit approvals and preservation of Keller Farm wetlands. Keller Farm wetlands are vital to aquifer recharge. Our aquifer supplies 40% of our drinking water. Meandering our waterways to control floods and preserve fish habitat is also funded through stormwater fees & grants.
It is clear, the city really does care about flood mitigation, safety of our drinking water, protection of endangered salmon, and the "swimmability" of Lake Sammamish and the slough. But, as Councilman Hank Margeson stated at the last council meeting -- a 452% stormwater rate increase over 20 years is something to look at. Mr. Margeson is Chair of the Planning and Public Works Committee. It meets the 2nd Thursday of the month at 4:30 pm in the room off of city hall chambers. Hank's committee has responsibility for looking at stormwater treatment issues.

Besides protections of our natural resources and environment stormwater fees will be used to help pay for the new $40 million Regional Treatment facility planned for the Downtown. In 2007 our residential stormwater rate increased by $6.58 to $16.56/single family home just to pay for the Regional facility. Did you notice this on your utility bill last year? According to Mr. Spangler in a 7/25/07 King County meeting, stormwater fees are about 2x those of Seattle.

The city's rational for this 40% increase is "everyone benefits" from the regional stormwater system since about 90% of all treated residential stormwater eventially drains into the Sammamish River. Councilman Pat Vache had concerns about maintenence of private facilities . Maintenance of commercial facilities is "code enforced" and paid by rate fees, according to J. Roetemyer, stormwater engineer. Public Works Director Campbell wasn't clear about maintenance by Homeowners Associations' facilities being "code enforced".

According to Mr. Jon Spangler, city Stormwater Manager, the complete facility will be built by 2011 -12 and have the capacity to ultimately treat 500 acres of future downtown development. Presently, 32.5 acres are developed and will be serviced regionally.

Drivers be aware - a major regional trunk-line on Redmond Way will be built by 2009. You can find the regional stormwater facility MAP "here".

I wrote a story on this in 8/30/07. You can find it on this blog's search engine by searching "spangler regional".

Should bicyclists be licensed to ride in Redmond?

Should bicyclists be licensed to ride?
The City of Seattle recently gave the green light for a $240 million plan for new bike lanes and street upgrades. Redmond may someday invest heavily in street upgrades for bikes. And that has some people wondering if bicyclists, like motorists, should share some of the costs of the road. Like a licensing fee. The Seattle PI looks at the options out there, but what do you think?

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

7/16/07, The city's new "shell game" with our capital funds

What you are about to read will take you to a place you've never been; and even with a good map you'd probably get lost trying to find your way out.

The place? Redmond's Capital Fund "Cavern". It's a dark, squishy place where a headlamp won't help and the more your squirm the deeper you sink. Even council bumps against the walls.
Redmond's 2007-2008 budget has 3 "Funding Sinkholes" (shells):

1) General Fund ($127M),

2) Utilities Fund ($116M),

3) Capital Fund (CIP) $216M.

For over 5 sessions the council and mayor have been playing a 'shell game' with taxpayer Capital funds (CIP) and our General Funds. It's close to impossible to keep up with the game because the rules change from council meeting to meeting. "Now you see it, now you don't."

The $32 million of "Unallocated capital (CIP) funds" quoted in our recent 2007-08 budget was "played down" to $13 million two weeks ago by Council. $32 million was "re-programed" to a more manageable number . At the last meeting, council "clarified" the $32M unallocated funds are "in reality" only $20M; since, $7M of those funds are "programed" for various reserves (operating, building, insurance) and other programs, leaving ta,dah! $13M in unallocated reserves! Why wasn't this $19M of "programed expenses" not written up in the Blue Book Budget? When the public doesn't know these "things", the budget and people are lost in the abyss. I for one, could have used the info in my Reporter article on Perrigo Heights to better explain the city decision not to "go after" the land acquisition.

After thorough review of last week's taped council sessions some of the recent CIP shell games are described below. Even with close scrutiny council dialogue is muffled, the CIP shells move too fast and council's shell choice (fund) is often fleeting. It appears the purpose of the game is to keep us guessing, confused, apathetic, unknowing. The message of the game? Perhaps -- the less we know about "their" business, the better.

"Citizen Vicky" (during an "Items from the Audience" talk) couldn't understand why Council would think to classify the City Hall as a General Operating Fund expense. After all, buildings are "capital" costs. Mayor Ives awakened when Vicky threatened an audit. The next week, council conveniently "re-classified" the City Hall lease from the "operating" to a "capital fund" (CIP). City Hall funds are now paid out of two smaller CIP capital funds -- " the "General Government CIP" and the "Council Contingency CIP". PRESTO! the state auditor issue vanishes.

CIP funds are as proliferate as breeding rabbits!

The above is just one example of a CIP shell game and how convoluted and discombobulated the budget process is at City Hall. In the real world of accounting one would presume funding a $40M building as anything other than an operating expense.

Not so for the City of Redmond.
SUPER FAST SHELL GAME - "THE LIGHTENING ROUND": City Hall maintenance & operations (M&O) is "captured' by the Capital Fund (CIP) but instantaneously transferred to the General operating fund to pay for city hall maintenance & operations (M&O). Keep in mind, CIP capital funds have always been generated by an annual 5%/year General Fund transfer. The Mayor had to write some new shell playing directions to accommodate this new dog chasing & "capturing" his tail strategy.

Thanks again to "Citizen Vicky's participation at "Items" for straightening the books. This particular game is fast!! And, KUDOS to Mr. Marchione for sticking his neck out bring transparency to the public.

A councilmember told me today the city "operating and capital budgets" change from meeting-to-meeting. So, it appears!

Thus, the CIP shells are moving incessantly AND NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE -- council, mayor, or staff --- unless the state performs an audit. Pardon my opinion, but don't you think tax-paying citizens deserve a budget audit from time to tim? Will our new Mayor request an audit to start off with a clean slate? Have the city books ever been audited at all? Does the dynamism of our three funds (Utility, CIP, General operating) have to be as complicated to the public as our Finance Director indicates? Will the next Administration stabilize and simplify CIP shell movements to a reasonable level of visibility and understanding for the viewing public?

Parks Shell game 3: Prior to the levy proposal, Council had long conversations about charging Parks Maintenance & Operations (M&O) to the Capital Fund (CIP) rather then the General Fund. It appeared all councilmembers and the mayor agreed with this change. After all, this reallocation would reduce the total amount citizens would be levied from 9 cents/thousand assessed to 5 cents and make the levy more palatable to the voters.

.

Parks Shell game 3 (continued): Two weeks later another citizen emailed his confusion about the wording of Proposition 2 (Parks levy) --- stating a good portion of the levy $$ goes to funding Maintenance and Operations. But if M&O is now to be paid from the Capital Fund then why does the city need an M&O levy to reload the parks operating fund? .

"are you still tracking the shell?" (I had to replay the game tapes more than once to follow my shell)

Parks Shell game 3 (continued):

At last Tuesday's Council Study Session the Mayor and council reached closure on the Parks M&O quandary by concluding (epiphany) the Capital funded Parks M&O decision was intended for 2-years out into the future --- NOT this biennium! Swhoosh! - away goes bad CIP shell and Proposition 2 is now "good to go" as written. ie. M&O parks funds will be funded by the levy's general operating fund --at least til after the levy vote --at which time the shells start moving again.

"Do you know under which shell your tax dollars are now" ? Most games last only a few hours; maybe a few weeks. Are you willing to track your shell into the next biennium?
Shell game 4: McCormick mentioned recently 10 other smaller CIP funds that are out there and need a looking at. But, that's another game, yet to be played.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city's 2007-2008 Operating Budget was completed June of 2006 . The city's 6-year capital funding program (CIP) was "completed" and published in the same blue, 307 page binder as the city's 2-year operating budget. It can be purchased for $6.75 from the cashier; highly recommended if you are a serious player.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOIDS FROM THE JULY 10, 2007 Council study session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city's average daily cash balance (float) is $125M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city is planning to borrow $78M to pay for: 1) Bear Creek Pkwy, 2) Sewer and 3) Stormwater for downtown redevelopment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City Hall costs $1.4M/year to lease and $500-600,000/year to maintain. City Hall maintenance is 3-4% of the $40M (Robinson). By 2012 cash resources will be depleted for city hall.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPER SHELL GAME: City Hall M&O is "captured' by the Capital Fund (CIP) and transferred to the General Fund to pay for city hall M&O. (CIP is generated by transferring 5%/year to from the General fund). (MARCHIONE's clarification)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parks M&O costs $614M for two years, but Parks is responsible for maintaining the new Red-Fall City median ($50K) and other expensive road medians. Council talked of transferring all median M&O expenses from Parks to the Transportation Capital (CIP) Fund. This shell game will free up lots more Parks M&O operating funds for use by Parks (rather than medians). So, why do we need to raise the lid for additional parks M&O operating funds? Answer: Developed parks are sacred in Redmond. Just look at the $10K cushman cart at Hartman Park carrying 2 workers for litter patrol -- one worker to drive and the other to use the litter tool.

FROM RICHARD MORRIS:
The City budget has been carefully crafted by the City Council, which is their main thing. The council is good at this sort of fiscal responsibilty. Mayor Rosemarie Ives has pushed for increased spending for operations, and the City Council has kept a steady eye on the budget. The City Council has been faithful to low property tax increases over the past several years, and voters have responded to the appeal for funding new parks, such as Perrigo Park and Hartman Park. The budget is a public document and is the result of many hours of hard work by City staff and council members. I am proud to call Redmond my home, and I congratulate the council for crafting a budget that is balanced, when there are so many pressures to borrow money and raise taxes.Hartman Park now has 6 baseball fields. During the ball season they are heavily utilized. It is amazing that a small crew can keep the park looking great. This park is a jewel and a wonderful community asset.
Friday July 20, 2007 - 06:16pm (PDT)

FROM YODER:
I'd hope some day the city would invest in a "passive" natural park -- low on maintenance-- and meeting the needs of our growing 60 year + demographic. It's fantastic we have many well-maintained active recreational parks but natural space gets scarcer every day.
Friday July 20, 2007 - 10:50pm (PDT)

FROM SATIN:
High maintenance parks are not scalable. We definitely need to examine alternative ways to reduce maintenance. Also we should explore creating "Park Teams" (local people) that organize to assist with maintaining and being an advocate for parks in Redmond. While I enjoy using the parks, I also enjoy ensuring they are preserved and in as good a shape as they can be so all can enjoy for generations.