The Kirkland City Council is performing a masterful sleight of hand trick this coming November election. The council is distracting Kirkland voters with “bling” in one hand, while they have their other hand deep inside the voter’s pocket. With the forecasted closure of the Juanita High School Pool and public concern about no longer having said pool, the council is offering the ARC in trade for authorization to increase Kirkland city property taxes by 50 percent.

The council wants to form an additional government taxing entity within the boundaries of Kirkland. The taxing entity is known as a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) and would fund the ARC and other park projects around the city. This MPD has the authority to collect taxes up to 75 cents per $1,000 value of your home. The current Kirkland city property tax rate is $1.50 per $1,000.

Councilman Toby Nixon says that the Council believes “the MPD is the most cost effective and flexible tool to deliver the ARC that the Kirkland community has requested from us.” Factually, Councilman Nixon is correct, but he and the council are also misleading the voters at the same time with his statement. If you stop and look at the fine print, you will see a different conclusion.

Yes, I agree that an MPD is a “flexible tool”. It is a flexible tool for the council, but not the taxpayer. It relieves the council of the responsibility of making tough choices, while pushing the Kirkland residents further from the process. The assessment for the MPD will start at 25 cents per $1,000 value of property, but can be raised as needed without voter approval up to the maximum. Kirkland’s MPD will be run by the council themselves. With the council overseeing both the Kirkland general budget and the proposed MPD budget adds even more flexibility. This “flexible tool” cannot be undone directly by the voters…ever. Only the council will be able to amend or close this MPD. The only way for voters to amend or cancel the MPD would be to elect new council members who were against maintaining an MPD. This process would take years to accomplish, leaving the taxpayer with little power.

Stop and ask why the council is requesting a flexible tool to fund the ARC. Currently there is no final design or location for the ARC. The cost of the ARC is projected to be $40-80 million. This wide range is a tell tale sign that the council does not have a final product to present to the public. In fact, Councilman Nixon uses the argument against funding the ARC with a traditional bond measure as it would require the city to provide “an accurate estimate of the total costs”. The very first step to formulate an accurate estimate of costs is to first know what you are building.

In short, the council wants everyone to vote for a new taxing authority with a forever tax without knowing what you are getting in return.

Do you really want a government entity to have this much flexibility with your money? An MPD has very little protection to the voters. If the council decides they want to fund all of the city’s parks through the MPD to free up funds in the general budget, the voters cannot stop them. They don’t even have to ask. The council has said they would not do this, but they already have if you look at their ARC proposed budget. Here, they include North Kirkland Community Center in their proposed MPD/ARC Budget.

The council believes they are doing what Kirkland voters are asking them to do. They state they have taken numerous statistically valid polls. They use the results of one of these polls from 2013 saying 82 percent of Kirkland registered voters approve building the ARC. These results are posted on the ARC website. Although, as you look closer, poll participants were not asked if they supported the ARC in its current form with costs, location or how it was going to be financed. The question on this poll asked whether the voter would support an “indoor community recreation and aquatic center to replace the Juanita High School Aquatics facility when it closes.” The voter was not asked, “would you support building a first class gym with sports courts, pools and indoor water park that will cost $40-80 dollars and will need a forever property tax increase to complete.” The council is also not highlighting the fact that in the same survey, only 6 percent said t hey used the current Juanita pool regularly.

The council posted a more recent poll conducted this year. The results were interesting too. Less than two years after the 2013 poll the support dropped to 75 percent for replacing Juanita’s pool. When notified that a tax measure was needed for a replacement pool the support dropped to 67 percent, and then, when asked if they would support a $48 million bond to pay for the new pool the support dropped further to 62 percent. This is a far cry from the 82 percent support the city is advertising.

With the above results, it is no wonder the council moved away from a bond. One fact that is not promoted by the council is that a MPD only needs a simple majority to pass, over 50 percent in favor. A bond measure needs 60 percent voter approval. The council knows that with $48 million price tag they only have 62 percent support which is just barely over the 60 percent to pass a bond. Moreover, if you factor in the poll’s margin of error of 4.9 percent, a bond may not pass at all.

Now the ARC could cost as much as $80 million and the council is now trying to fund it with a forever tax (MPD). We need to stop, read the fine print again, and then vote NO on Kirkland Prop. 1.

We have moved way beyond the idea of replacing a closing Juanita pool. At $40-80 million, The ARC project has grown out of control and the council is not acting responsibly by attempting to bring us back to earth. The “bling” is too bright, even for them.

I encourage you to stop and read the fine print once again. Kirkland Proposition 1 is not a vote to fund a new pool, it is vote to allow the council free access to your wallet without being accountable to the taxpayers of Kirkland. While Councilman Toby Nixon and the Kirkland City Council define this as flexibility, keep your eyes on both of their hands and don’t let them distract you. Vote no on Kirkland Prop. 1; there are more responsible ways to build a pool.

Please take the time to vote Nov. 3.

Jerry Kraft, Kirkland