At the latest budget study session, the council was still in denial as to what to do. The entire session was around how to make up for the “structural” difference in the budget, better known as a gap, deficit, debt, or shortfall.

The plan is to cover the $13.1 million shortfall by using $4 million in reserves and $9 million in cutbacks, and that’s even before paying for the cost to gear up for annexation. That will be covered at the next council meeting on the 17th.

In the discussion, several council members expressed their desire to balance the budget their way. Some were good. Some were idiotic.

Let’s take the idiotic first. The city is financially at risk. It is using up $4 million of the $7 million we have in reserves. The reserve goal is $10 million. In order to keep our safety net, we need to replenish our reserves. Just how are we going to do that if expenditures exceed revenues?

The revenues next year will be down from this year; yet we have council members that believe replacing the reserves can be done. I have tried to tone down my criticism of Councilmember McBride. However, she believes the reason why we have reserves is to pay for non-essential services and to give money away at a time when basic services are in jeopardy. We can’t replenish the reserves with money that’s not there. It’s nonsense. We have a city to run. Yet, we are still giving away money at a time services are being cut.

Unfunded mandates were not discussed. Retirement programs must be paid for.

Many “one time” expenditures will be exhausted. Councilmember Sternoff was correct when he said, “What’s next.” What happens when the reserves run out? Councilmembers Asher and Greenway had the same concerns emphasizing the need for a sustainable budget. Councilmember Asher misstated when he said 2011 would not be a factor in affecting the city’s budget. He is forgetting what it will take to gear up for annexation.

Annexation should not occur until 2012 when the revenues from the PAA start coming into city coffers. The effective date should be Jan. 1, 2012. The budget depends on it.

Councilmember Greenway brought out the fact that we were paying $6,000 per year to be on the board of a Seattle regional organization of which we have not received a dime for our efforts. Yet Councilmembers McBride and Burleigh said it was a good investment if we got our share of the money going toward regional funding. It hasn’t happened in three years. And, if it did happen that we got back a million, the million had to come out of the taxpayer’s pockets. In other words, our $6,000 dollars would only be a down payment of a larger debt. We could go broke saving money.

Councilmember Sternoff highlighted the fact that unemployment and commercial development has yet to bottom out. Why then do we have some council members wanting budgets that do not take that into consideration?

Finally, the council needs to declare there is a “substantial need” in order to keep the property tax increase at 101 percent. The IPD went down, which would otherwise reduce our property taxes. Our property taxes should go down.

Our heads are not in the sand. If the council declares a “substantial need,” it will fly in the face of the citizens who have their own budgets to deal with.

Bob Style, Kirkland