© 1996-2006 Municipal League of King County
810 Third Avenue, Suite 224 Seattle, WA 98104
 Jim Robinson's comments on his "GOOD" Municipal League Mayoral Rating: "I was very disappointed with my Muni-League rating. The candidate questionnaires (submittals) can be found on the Muni-League website and I encourage anyone interested to read them and then make your own judgment. The ratings are just one of many data points that can be used in evaluating a candidate. I still strongly feel that on a facts and data basis I am the most qualified of the Mayoral candidates."
-- Jim Robinson, mayoral candidate, 8/3/07 BARB THOMPSEN: "I saw some deer while out walking my dogs on Education Hill this morning. I can’t help but feel sad for them—they have nowhere to go. Which of the candidates is going to do something about saving our green spaces and stop catering to the big builders like Cam West? I am so glad that Rosemarie Ives is leaving; I’ve been saying for a long time that being in office as long as she has, results in building relationships and being influenced by them regardless of good intentions." - Barb Thompsen, Education Hill neighbor. 8/5/07 Tuesday August 7, 2007 - 12:02pm (PDT)
 Facts of crime in Redmond, from Officer Kristi Wilson, Redmond Police Commander kwislon@redmond.gov
1. Violent Crime has increased 16% since 1995.
2. Auto theft has increased 100% since 1995.
3. Identity theft and computer crimes in the last five years have impacted police resources. Investigations of cybercrime often requires a detective, crime analyst and computer forensic investigator.
4. Since 1997, population has increased 23%, yet NO new officers have been added to the department since 1999.
5. The time it takes the Police to respond to an emergency calls has risen to 9 minutes in some neighborhoods, particularly North Redmond and Overlake.
PROPOSITION 1 IS PART OF THE CITY'S ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THESE SAFETY ISSUES.
Yes or No --- your Vote on August 21 counts!
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
 All mayoral candidates were invited to write a Letter to the Neighborhood Blog and all responded and all are posted in order of submission.
To the Citizens of Redmond,
Hello, I am John Marchione and I am running for Mayor of Redmond.
When I was four years old, my parents chose Redmond to raise their family. Since then, Redmond and I have grown up together.
When I was 5, I started kindergarten at the brand new Ben Rush Elementary.
When I was 8, I played baseball on the newly improved Hartman Park fields.
When I was 13, McDonald’s and Wendy’s opened in town.
When I was 16, SR 520 came all the way to downtown Redmond.
Debbie and I married at St. Jude’s in Redmond and chose to raise our family here.
Coaching my son in baseball and daughter in soccer taught me the value of well maintained and safe parks.
As the founding Treasurer of the Lake Washington Schools Foundation, I have worked to support our public schools, which my two children attend.
Currently, I serve on the Redmond City Council and have worked to improve fire service, obtain a clean, safe water supply, and to manage our financial resources wisely.
Redmond is a great city, but it cannot rest on its laurels. We need to create an identity for downtown where people want to go to, not just go through. We need to connect our transportation and trails systems so we can move within our city. And we need to manage our financial resources wisely so we know what services we are buying with our tax dollars.
Redmond is no longer a bedroom community. We must shape the growth around us instead of allowing the growth to shape us. A proactive vision of the city and services we want will help ensure we enhance our quality of life. This is not a vision to encourage growth, but a plan to manage inevitable growth to keep Redmond great.
My top level management experience will make me an effective Mayor immediately. My ten years in local government and ten years as CFO of Meydenbauer Center have taught me the strong leadership skills needed to bring us together and move Redmond forward.
Our next Mayor must be a diplomat to work with our neighbors on regional issues. Our next Mayor must be dedicated and know the City like a childhood friend. Our next Mayor must have solid leadership and management skills. I am that person. I bring the dedication, education and experience to move Redmond forward. I ask for your vote. John Marchione p.s. For more information on my vision for Redmond, or to contact me with any questions you might have, please visit my website: http://www.johnmarchione.com/
All mayoral candidates were invited to write a Letter to the Neighborhood Blog and post a photo. Kim Allen was probably Jim's closest campaign advisor. She encouraged him to enter Derby Days on a bike and challenge the candidates on campaign signs.
Dear Friends, “Hometown or Employment Center?” Redmond is facing a vision challenge with this mayoral election. The choice is clear-I want Redmond to remain a great hometown by thoughtfully planning our growth, maintaining our strong environmental ethic and developing a governing model that is transparent and accessible to all who call Redmond home. I am running for mayor because, of all the candidates, I have the best portfolio of insight and experience to lead Redmond forward. Our fiscal challenges are acute but my plan for rebalancing our revenue choices and prioritizing the investment of the lion’s share of our ongoing money to maintain our high level of city services is a sensible approach. Our capital expansion can and should require the citizen input inherent in including bond and levy increases in support of that type of investment. This nuanced approach should provide the course correction Redmond needs. Just as in my career with Boeing, as Redmond’s Mayor I will follow through to make sure things happen. My top priorities include a citizen’s budget and technology oversight committees, infrastructure maintenance, along with establishing a transportation commission, updating the Hartman Park Pool, and other new opportunities for volunteerism. The citizens of Redmond have a lot to contribute. “Coming Home to Redmond” the choice is yours. http://www.robinsonformayor.com/ FROM JIM ROBINSON -- I was very disappointed with my Muni-League rating. The candidate questionnaires (submittals) can be found on the Muni-League website and I encourage anyone interested to read them and then make your own judgment. The ratings are just one of many data points that can be used in evaluating a candidate. I still strongly feel that on a facts and data basis I am the most qualified of the Mayoral candidates. 8/3/07 Saturday August 4, 2007 - 12:20am (PDT) from Bob Yoder: Jim Robinson campaign signs are recylcable - made out of milk cardon materials. Lots of his signs are placed in busy medians. Not good practices "Safety is Priority 1" Saturday August 4, 2007 - 09:51am
The new Redmond Reporter editor from Seattle, Mr. Bill Christianson, appears to have discontinued my "Citizen Watch" column. So best not to waste your time looking for it in the paper.
I wanted you to know the new, young Editor decided not publish my "History of Redmond Mayors" column after recieving a "Press Advisory" from Kim Van Eckstrom, of City Communications. Kim (and the Mayor) complained of "errors" in my "water supply " opinion column. It was clear they were trying to discredit me. Most of my column information that Kim Van Eckstrom said was wrong was taken right off the city website -- edited by Van Eckstrom.
So far, the newspaper has been unable to set the record straight for me and has referred me to the city. Looks like the city 'owns' the paper now. Obviously, during an election politics are heightened. Such is the case. It is known that certain high-level staff members are actually campaigning for Jim Robinson. The "Press Advisory" was triggered by a blog I wrote on Jim's campaign sign "challenge" for safety. At that point, the Administration knew who I was supporting. They have also been frustrated by my blog.
The good news is I'm working with the city administration to improve the factual content on their website, (or stand behind it), encourage a comprehensive water conservation program, and improve communications with citizens who wish to participate in our government.
If you want to read any of my "Citizen Watch" columns they're all posted on the Front Page of this blog under the "MY GROUPS" , "Community ". I've also posted a detailed rebuttal to the Administration about their "Correction" claims there.
Thanks for your readership!
As always,
Bob
RICHARD MORRIS - "Letter to Editor" RR Bob Yoder’s Citizen Watch column (July 11th) apparently hit a nerve at the Redmond City Hall. I just wanted to clarify our discovery of hidden waste tanks near Evans Creek. Bob and I were doing some field research on Redmond’s Stream Map Update in October 2005. We were concerned about the classification of each stream shown on Redmond’s Stream Map. The map is used by developers to make Land Use Proposals. We discovered hidden waste tanks near Evans Creek along Union Hill Road, and inquired about the status of the tanks with the City of Redmond. After some jurisdiction discussions, King County Councilwoman Kathy Lambert and staff visited the site. The waste tanks were removed in November 2005.I have known Bob Yoder as a neighbor for over 25 years. We have worked together on many Citizen Watch projects as we are both passionate about Redmond’s natural assets. I am proud to know Bob and I can assure you that he strives to do his best to raise awareness about quality of life issues in Redmond. I encourage other readers to support Bob Yoder’s Citizen Watch column in the Redmond Reporter. The newspaper is our community forum. Saturday July 28, 2007 - 02:00pm (PDT) RICHARD MORRIS: Bob, here is an interesting article on http://www.slate.com/id/2171305/fr/flyout about a journalist who is given a second chance. I thought you might find it interesting reading.If the RR gives you a second chance to write Citizen Watch, I have some ideas on how to write a bullet-proof column.I think you have found your voice, and it is effective. If no one in the city hall were reading your column, they would not have “objected to your version of facts”.I hope the RR gives you a second chance to write Citizen Watch. Your column is needed in our town.Thanks, Richard Saturday July 28, 2007 - 02:02pm (PDT) YODER Thanks, Richard. After glancing at this Saturday's RR "opinion column" on trans-fats I realized we do need a respectable citizen Forum in the RR. Maybe they could take my column space and give to the candidates - "Candidate's Turn". If we could get the city to ask - especially Van Eckstrom the young editor would probably move on it. Another idea would be: "Staff's Turn". Then Bill Campbell would be able to explain the continuing Perrigo Springs mess and Kim Van Eck. could defend her "corrections" policy or explain her 16 yeaar old water conservation initiatives. So far, I haven't found them. :) Bob Saturday July 28, 2007 - 03:12pm (PDT) COUSIN BRUCEY hey ho bobo great caesar's ghost kent...perry white woulda never given ya the heave ho... apparently whats news to some is disruptive to others...the squelching of opinion or commentary is a red flag for its need...so it'll be up to the regulars of this blogusphere to stand atop the hill of information you provide and cast its wisdom upon our uneducated masses... probably time to launch that write in candidacy...ey bobo. Monday July 30, 2007 - 12:36pm (PDT) FROM: Barb Thompson, Ed. Hill -- I just sent off an email to the Redmond Reporter complaining them about the removal of your column. I want you to know that I appreciate your “cut to the chase, tell the whole story” philosophy.8/5/07
 Dear Neighbors,
As my campaign promise, you may have heard that I pledge to re-build trust in Redmond City government, establish more transparency, fiscal responsibility and increased opportunity for resident involvement in Redmond’s city government. But, what exactly does that mean?
Many of us judge our quality of life by the quality of our neighborhoods. How our neighborhoods look, how accessible they are and how safe they feel are all aspects that affect our quality of life.
As Mayor of Redmond, I pledge to strengthen the processes that will protect our neighborhoods and quality of life while supporting fiscally responsible, meaningful growth.
To problem solve and encourage new leadership in our community, I will encourage the organization of formal neighborhood associations and develop more opportunities for open discussions between residents and City administration and staff. Residents will be empowered to have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives and neighborhoods. Public discussion will be convenient, timely, and considered part of the planning process.
I will promote significant input from residents and dialogue with City administration and staff prior to any changes taking place. This is your right as a resident and my duty as an elected official.
I will also continue to emphasize multi-modal transportation. Pedestrian and bike trails, van pools, and transit, in addition to roads, will provide clean, efficient, environmentally friendly transportation for our entire community. Toward this end, I will also support use of bio-diesel vehicles for the City’s fleet.
For business, I will create an environment where small businesses, as well as major employers, maintain a substantial role in a vibrant economy for Redmond residents. This includes insuring a fair tax structure for businesses and implementing the final decisions of the Downtown Master Transportation Plan, which include a pedestrian friendly, well-connected street grid that encourages and supports our downtown area's small and medium size employers.
To benefit the entire community, I will work to attract a branch of the University of Washington or Cascadia Community College to Redmond. The expansion of Lake Washington Technical College into Redmond demonstrates the vitality that local educational opportunities can add to a growing community.
Those who know me know I walk my talk. I do not ask of others what I am not willing to do myself. I keep my promises and work hard to achieve my goals. I believe that reading, listening, and probing different perspectives are essential before taking a position on any issue. I am also willing to acknowledge mistakes or change a position based on new information.
As Mayor of Redmond, I will mentor new leadership throughout the community. I will lead positively and encourage others by looking for opportunities to praise and using constructive criticism when appropriate. I will also approach each situation with a win-win attitude. I believe that this approach coupled with active civil discourse and citizen participation can produce productive government built of reasonable compromise and promising outcomes.
My five years of experience working on the Redmond Planning Commission and four years working on the City Council gives me the background to strengthen Redmond’s neighborhoods and to listen to and act on neighborhood and regional business concerns. I would welcome the opportunity to serve as your Mayor.
Warm regards,
Holly Plackett
OPINION
/17/07 - Last night's citizen appeal to council of the Shaughnessy Heights, 15.1 acre 42-lot development adjacent Redmond El. will go down in the history books. It was the longest running plat review in city history - much owing to our PRD (Planned Residential Use) policy allowing for clear-cuts and greater densities.
The proposed development of approximately 42 lots (including duplexes) is serviced by one road in&out adjacent Redmond Elementary School. Deforestation and loss of habitat would occur almost in size of Perrigo Heights.
Though traffic safety and habitat issues came up, the two main legal issues were about tree buffering and adequate water service to the nearby neighborhoods. After much discourse the Council decided 7-0 to deny the permit and uphold the appeal of six citizens; and remand the appeal back to the Hearing Examiner to allow a second, open Public Hearing.
Six citizens appealed, led persuasively by S. Howard and J. Richardson. Public Notification deficiencies were again, a major source of dissent. The Hearing Examiner did not allow scores of citizens to appeal in writing owing to a technicality. Alert citizens purchased audio tapes of the Hearing Examiner's appeal hearing to have proof for their case. Councilwoman Kim Allen asked that a comprehensive letter be written to the Hearing Examiner advising changes in his Party of Record policy.
Problems with the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) permit resurfaced. Citizens were very upset that a line of trees buffering their neighborhood from the development would be stripped. The trees would provide a valuable buffer from seven proposed towering new homes. Councilman Vache empathized since Mosaic Meadows project impacts his property in a similar fashion.
The developer claimed he was technically meeting city requirements for significant tree count and pervious soils by accounting for it though the parcel's "native growth easement". ("Native growth easements" is land that can't be developed because of steep slopes, ravines, streams, etc.) Thus, the developer claimed he should be allowed to strip out the neighboring buffer trees claiming them unsafe.
The neighborhood citizens countered saying their trees would not be safe with concerns for quality of life.Allen, Marchione, and Vache, offered impressive analysis and decision-making. But, Council President McCormick's hallmark statement warrants quotation.
After thanking Ms. Allen for articulating the case so well, Council President Ms. Nancy McCormick movingly stated:
"The public process may not have been violated but it was twisted. I can't keep from thinking about that couple who appeared at the Tent City public meeting and signed up to be Party of Record only to be denied on appeal to be heard.
The public needs accurate information and timeliness of an appeal, otherwise we make a mockery out of Public Hearings and caring about public involvement."
Ms. McCormick's motion to deny and uphold the appeal passed unanimously. The public is invited to review the project once again.
10/8/07 SUMMARY COMMENTS FROM TWO APPELLANTS NEIGHBORING THE PROJECT; The neighborhood appealants 'lost' to the landowner.
NEIGHBOR Ian -
The disappointing thing in my mind is that we had to put forth a very large amount of effort to secure the condition that adds this new buffer, when I feel that the city should have been the one putting that requirement into place from the beginning. Somehow the city didn’t even know that the right of way had no trees in it, even though there’s a sewer line running down it, which means they would have cleared it at some point of trees to put in that line.
Codes such as what Kirkland has in place are really the only good way to go about preserving mature trees. Even if we could have gotten the developer to leave the strip of trees along the border, I don’t think I would want them to do so, given that they’d be clearing out all the trees behind them, exposing that strip to new wind forces that could bring them down on my house. Kirkland’s codes on the other hand would have prevented the clearing of significant trees behind the strip as well, preserving the wind break and forcing developers to build around existing trees. Now, for all I know, Kirkland may also have similar development programs like the PLAT which allow developers to use different rules as long as they meet some criteria, but I know that at least the starting point for Kirkland development projects is more tree friendly than what we have here in Redmond.
However, given that we can’t protect the large trees along that strip, and that we can’t really stop the development outright, I think we’ve managed to secure the next best thing: a new buffer of trees to be planted along that boundary which meets our requirements for screening, in exchange for our support of the project going forward (no more appeals basically, and an email voicing that support to the city now that the new condition is in place).
-Ian. 10/8/07
From Steve Howard: We could never stop the developer from taking the big trees, since the city allows the tree numbers to be measured over the entire site. Or in other words it gives the developer a license to clear cut the land where they plan on putting the new houses. I would love to see a way to require that 35% of the trees must remain across the site. including the building area. The present codes and how they are read allows the developers to play a math game with our mature trees receiving no protection. This is wrong. 10/8/07
7/18/07 During last night's Council meeting regarding Perrigo Heights easement, Councilwoman Kim Allen voiced concerns for the three, long 20-30 foot wide easements that had been stripped clean of all trees. The easements are for sewer, stormwater and water pipes. CAMWEST indicated that new trees would be planted on these easements. I don't think so! as I recall, common construction practices are to plant only native vegetation cover, NOT trees -- because tree roots can work their way into the pipes. Question: why didn't the Director of Public Works or the Senior Planner approach the podium to clarify Camwest's answer. If not for Councilwoman Kim Allen then the viewing public ? ??
Stormwater piping will be trenched under an ancient Snoqualmie Indian village site directly into Perrigo Creek. The stormwater will be released downstream from the wetland into Perrigo Creek. Thus, all rainwater from the forest (now the development) will be diverted away from the wetlands! With the trees stripped, sun is now "feeding" invasive plants in the wetlands. The wetlands are drying; possibly now slowing "dying". Public Works and Parks have been notified and will monitor this Priority park wetland resource.
 This is a photo of one of the busiest medians in the city -- Avondale and Redmond Way. I pity the soul who had to stake Mr. Robinson's sign on this median...and the distracted drivers.
Click on the photo to enlarge it, then read Mr. Robinson's press release, below. Does anything more need to be said?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release: Jim Robinson for Mayor of Redmond Campaign
Jim Robinson, candidate for Redmond mayor in this fall’s election, is issuing a challenge to his opponents, Holly Plackett and John Marchione, to join with him and mutually agree to forego the use of yard signs in their campaigns. Yard signs are a significant source of visual clutter and have a negative impact on our environment, both by the resources used and the litter remaining after the election season is over. In addition, the proliferation of the number of signs in recent elections, especially in the public rights of way, can create hazardous conditions for drivers. Mr. Robinson believes that preserving the natural environment in Redmond is very high on the citizens’ list of priorities and so has proposed this small but significant step toward achieving that outcome.
For more information, go to http://www.robinsonformayor.com/. FROM MS. ALLEN: 7/17 - From Councilwoman Kim Allen - Mr. Robinson did indeed issue a challenge to the other mayoral candidates to forego signs in this mayoral race. This would require the agreement of ALL the candidates so no one could get an unfair advantage. Both John Marchione and Holly Plackett flatly refused. In light of that, Jim has placed signs but would have preferred to keep Redmond green. He is using signs that are recyclable and will remove them all in the days following the election. Wednesday July 18, 2007 - 09:33pm (PDT) FROM RICHARD MORRIS: I was hoping for more discussion on the issues facing Redmond. This press release does not inspire me. For instance, what is the City of Redmond doing about reducing the use of gasoline for its fleet of vehicles? Are they planning to convert to bio-diesel? Friday July 20, 2007 - 05:00pm (PDT) FROM YODER: Mr. Robinson's sign is made of recyclable milk cartons, however, it is yet to be determined if the signs can be readily recycled. Saturday August 11, 2007 - 03:26pm (PDT) FROM L. SNODGRASS Jim's sign is of similar material to the Park's Proposition 1 sign. Apparently, it can be recycled but there is some work involved in removing the wood frames. The following is a note from the Park's Legacy campaign worker: "The Proposition 2 yard signs will be 100% recycled. The signs themselves are made of recyclable material -- both in the recycling collection bin and also in my husband's workshop. Weathered and damaged signs are stripped from the wood and put in the bins; and yes, the staples are also recyclable material. The wood frames/stakes will be (1) offered to other campaigns for use, (2) shared with gardeners looking for plant supports, and (3) broken down further and recycled if they are in poor condition. Nothing will be wasted nor neglected." Tuesday September 4, 2007 - 04:13pm (PDT)
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.
From Jon Spangler, Dept. of Natural Resources
BOB YODER -
Thank you for taking the time to e-mail us (and for hiking the Hartman park wetland). The City has been visually monitoring the wetland for the last several years. The dry conditions you experienced are not unusual for this time of year given the current weather patterns. The Natural Resources Division has had some preliminary consultant investigation done on the wetland in recent years and there are options to adjust local drainage patterns if conditions do deteriorate. For now we plan to continue our visual observations. Jon Spangler, Stormwater, C.O.R.
Tuesday July 3, 2007
- ----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your concerns and suggestions regarding the Hartman Park wetlands. In the future, we will actively monitor these wetlands for implementation of appropriate management practices to ensure their health. We will also work cooperatively with the Natural Resources Division on this situation. Please contact me if you have any further concerns or suggestions.
Dave Tuchek, Assistant Manager City of Redmond Park Operations,
MOCPK425-556-2318Fax 425-556-2373
dtuchek@redmond.gov
Monday July 9, 2007 -
|
|
|
Hey! another neighbor just posted a comment. Press "Comments" below 
