With money tight at City Hall, Per-Ola Selander is the type of guy they had in mind when civic leaders planned a voter-approved tax-hike in 2009 as one of the ways to balance the budget last year.
Currently unemployed, the 47-year-old Swedish national has paid a healthy amount of taxes to Kirkland since moving here in 2000. The standard-of-living drew the telecom consultant here from Texas, where he said life was cheaper, but you get what you pay for. If he had to pay more to keep things the way they are, Selander said, then so be it.
“The clean water, clean air, the mountains … This place has so much going for it, from good neighbors to engaged citizens,” he said.
But at a Feb. 3 City Council study session, scheduled mainly to consider a date for putting the tax measure on the ballot, several members began to distance themselves from the rate increase, citing the economic uncertainty and rising unemployement that many residents face.
“People out there are losing their jobs,” said Councilman Tom Hodgson. “Things are different now. We need to take this into account.”
The proposed tax increase on private utilities is seen as electicity, gas, telephone and cable services. It is expected to cost the average city household (valued at $500,000) an additional $5.90 per month – or nearly $71 per year – and raise approximately $2.2 million for city coffers. City Finance Director Tracey Dunlap asked the council to consider the cost (estimated at $79,000 to $103,000) and several dates for the ballot measure, focusing on the prefered date of the 2009 primary election, Aug. 18.
City Manager David Ramsay warned the rejection of the utility tax increase would force the city to revisit the option of making further cuts from a list that left public safety departments largely untouched. Another option would be even deeper service reductions and job cuts to other city departements that had already experienced nearly 10 percent in cuts.
A prime example came from councilwoman Jessica Greenway, On May 29 last year, Greenway voiced early support for a utility tax, saying it was one of the few that was based on consumption and could be managed by taxpayers if budgets were squeezed.
“I’m interested in hearing from the public in their vote (on this),” she said.
But in 2009, Greenway took a decidedly different tone.
“At this point, I am not sure I am going to support going out for this tax increase,” she said at the Feb. 3 meeting.
Councilmembers Dave Asher, Mary-Alyce Burleigh and Joan McBride said they were willing to go ahead with the ballot measure, but others prefered to wait until new information on the local economy was available. Councilman Bob Sternoff opposed the measure outright, citing his vote against the budget last year.
According to state law, the city must balance its budget and last year City Council managed to trim-down an estimated $19 million in projected expeditures from the city’s General Fund. But part of that budget is already counting on a private utility tax-hike that requires voter approval. Kirkland adopted a two-year budget cycle in 2004.
To be approved, the measure only requires a 50 percent plus-one majority vote.
While councilmembers tried to gauge public sentiment for a voter-approved tax increase, some members of the public were less than enthusiastic. Self-described citizen advocate Bob Style aired his concerns on a local blog, Kirklandviews.com, criticizing what he viewed as “justifying the unjustifiable.” He believed at least $2 million could still be cut from the General Fund by slashing positions in the City Manager’s Office.
* This version corrects the vote required for passage of the tax measure, which is set at a simple majority of 50 percent-plus-one of ballots cast in favor. A special election majority is based on the electorate in the General Election only for a vote concerning bonds or levies.
