Could the car-tab tax be a stealth tax to fund rail corridor?

Published 12:49 pm Monday, February 6, 2012

As a resident of the area recently annexed (over the objection of the citizens of both the then-current and proposed annexation area) into the City of Kirkland, I read with great interest the letter submitted by Jim Boril.

I recently submitted a letter to the Reporter questioning the fiscal prudence of the council’s decision to spend $5 million on the acquisition of a yet-to-be-developed rail corridor, for use by bikers and hikers, when the city’s infrastructure is in such deteriorated condition.

I also encouraged the citizens to read the Dec. 5, 2011 report and recommendation submitted to City Manager Kurt Triplett supporting the purchase of the rail corridor, which set forth the funding sources described as “interfund loans.”

Through the use of the loans the city plans to borrow $5 million from itself by shifting funds for parks and recreation, water/sewer utility funds, surface water fund and road maintenance. Funding sources are yet-to-be-identified for required upgrades, continuing operation and maintenance.

Now, surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), the city finds itself with insufficient funds for much-needed road maintenance. The solution: add a car-tab tax to supplement the road-maintenance budget.

And to add insult to injury, as Mr. Boril points out in his letter, a significant portion of this new tax burden will be borne by the residents of the annexed area where, as indicated by the Kirkland Public Works Department during the run-up to the annexation, the roads are in significantly better shape than those in (old) Kirkland.

What’s wrong with this picture? Could the car-tab tax be a stealth tax to fund the purchase of the rail corridor?

Nelson Main, Kirkland