So the permanent utility tax increase that is being proposed is going to cost tax payers just the price of a couple of lattes. The latte argument was used for the Sound Transit expansion, and the King County Parks M and O level. It’s no wonder Starbucks sales are down, we are using all of our discretionary spending dollars for tax increases.

The Kirkland Yes proponents recommended that we fund basic services using a new utility tax. Kirkland was over spending before the recession, and the economic slowdown has exacerbated the city’s poor financial condition. I would be willing to pay more if the city council and city manager showed fiscal constraint, but they don’t. The council’s support of annexation is an example of future increased costs for residents without additional revenue. If this city was serious about improving its tax base, why hasn’t the Totem Lake Mall been redeveloped? It sits almost empty and continues to generate very little sales tax.

Another example of fiscal irresponsibility of the city occurred when we received Juanita Bay Park from King County Parks, only to have to turn around and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring it to an acceptable maintenance level. Kirkland Yes proponents claim that the city staff aren’t getting a cost of living increase for next year. That’s because the union agreements call for cost of living increases that are 90 percent of the local CPI, and this year, we have a negative CPI. No sacrifice there. If the city really wanted to cut costs, they could quit overpaying for consultants, cut out police over-time at all the community events, find ways to reduce government instead of grow government. The Kirkland City Manager is one of the highest paid city manager’s on the Eastside and the council approved an annual car/gas allowance of more than $5,000 in addition to his high salary. Where is the sacrifice from top officials in the city? Before you ask us to dig into our pockets, you need to show some fiscal responsibility at city hall.

Pat Harris, Kirkland