The Kirkland Reporter sat down with all three candidates for Kirkland City Council position No. 5 for a Q&A. This is the final installment of a three-part series.
What are some of the hot-button issues the council faces and where do you stand on those?
Tennyson: Annexation is probably number one and that will probably be the driving force. I did not support annexation when it started. I went to almost every annexation meeting that we had because I wanted to hear what everyone’s views were on it. And what I saw was a city bleeding revenue and to me, if we couldn’t take care of ourselves and get ourselves under control the size we are, how did we think we were going to do it if we doubled in size? But I think we have the right things underway. Dave Ramsay is resigning and we’re going to get a new city manager. I hope we get one that has better budget experience.
So once the city (went forward with) annexation, and my only concern was what it would do to Kirkland and how we’d respond to it. But if it passes, we all need to get on board and support it and I have been supportive of it since the council passed it because I think that’s the position to take.
But those people (in the PAA) are here – they’re part of Kirkland now. It’s not going to change much except that we’ll have more area to contend with.
Utility tax: In a recession, I don’t think you raise taxes. But what I understand about the utility tax is that they’re tying specific programs to that. So if you want to save those programs, then you should vote for the utility tax. I don’t know if they’ve decided what those programs are. I thought that was a good way to go about it so everyone can make a choice. It’s before the voters, that’s where it should be. They can decide what’s important to them.
Walen: I am sad that we have gotten ourselves in the situation that we have to put the Utility Tax on the ballot. But I think it is an appropriate thing to be on the ballot because I think it is a way of crystalizing the message from the people to the city. You know what? We want this level of service to continue. What we have we want to keep it and we are willing to pay for it. Or, you know what? You need to make more cuts. You need to make do with less, just like we are making do with less. I am for annexation. I think it is part of our responsibility. I think we are a city of annexations and mergers. It is the natural continuation of the process that began with Totem Lake being taken. It is our moral responsibility. I think it is just time. The state wants us to do it, the county wants us to do it and we need to step up and do it. If you look at the map of Kirkland it makes sense that those places belong to us. They think they live in Kirkland, they have a Kirkland address. They use our services, our parks and come to Kirkland functions.
Gregory: One is the Potential Annexation Area. I would have supported it probably two years ago, even when it was still questionable. The entire time I have been on the Planning Commission that area has been part of the discussion for annexation. And the county is trying to push that to the head when they offered some money a few years ago. We have Juanita High School that is in Kirkland and considered kind of the jewel cause it has our pool and the field house and it was a unique facility when it was built but it serves the annexation area and the elementary and the middle schools all feed into that. A sense of Kirkland and a sense of belonging has always been there. The Little League World Series that was won wasn’t the downtown or south little league it was the North Little League All Stars that won that and there was a parade downtown. I was here for that. But it really was the annexation area that can take credit for that.
Another hot issue is the utility tax, which the council has delayed a decision. If they decide to put it on the ballot that is the proper way, to let the people decide, but I do not support putting it on the ballot. I am of the opinion that they need to balance the budget with what they have. I don’t think it is going to pass. I just talked to a neighbor just two days ago who just got laid off and I am still hearing of people in that situation. The dollars just aren’t there.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way is a hot issue for some people. There are a lot of people who would like to see that converted to a trail and bike way. As a part of my position on land I am OK with the development of a trail and bike lane but I don’t want to lose the potential for rail, light rail, mono rail whatever kind of rail is determined. Given the economic situation we don’t have the access to give away what we have. My feeling is that we have to hang on to what the public has in terms of ownership or easements and right-of-ways. I don’t like seeing land just sitting unused.
Taxes are a hot issue and I don’t think we have seen all the fallout on those issues. What I am referring to on that is the agencies that collect taxes have passed through public vote the ability to collect a certain dollar revenue. When property values are high, that gets spread out and the rate you pay is based on that assessed valuation. So the rate can be very low. My property taxes just went down 10 or 20 percent. So now the people who stayed up high will pay the higher portion and for us that it’s low we will see a higher rate. The whole issue of sales tax were limited in this state, by state law that we can only raise our property taxes one percent a year. The city over the last four years hasn’t gone up to that full percentage, so now we are playing catchup. Other main sources of revenue is the utility tax and sales tax. Sales tax No. 1, utility tax No. 2 and property tax No. 3. Sales tax has taken a huge hit. And it has not helped by having the Head Tax on business. It is a burden on the service industries where there are a high number of employees and a low wages. It doesn’t help businesses. It’s like saying we are going to charge you for being here so you should go look elsewhere.
What is one thing the city has accomplished during the last session that you agree with, and one you disagree with?
Tennyson: I was really pleased when they did the campaign contribution cap. I thought that was really a worthwhile thing and I was glad they took it on and passed it.
There’s lots of things I don’t agree with. They had so many arguments it was just ridiculous.
I voted against Parkplace, not because of development, but because I felt it was flat zoning and I think they should have looked at the entire zone, that they should have done the whole CBD (Central Business District) 5 and not created a new area. I felt it was disingenuous on the city’s part to just take this one development and forget the other property owners that are there, some of who have built to the maximum what the zoning was and to give this one property a bonus and not include everybody was a wrong choice.
Walen: I support the city needing to tax businesses on some level but I think the Head Tax was the wrong model. I think a B&O or revenue-based tax would have been more appropriate considering we are a sales-tax based economy. We are not a bedroom community and we need our own economic base. I just think it makes more sense to tax revenue rather than the number of employees. Maybe there is the philosophy that they use the streets more, they use the services more. But I really think that revenue is a more fair basis. We want people to create jobs. We don’t want people to think, “Ooh, create a job, pay another $100.” That is not a good thought process for our businesses. But I do support some sort of tax on business.
The council was talking about down zoning in the annexation area and I would not support that. I think that it would be unfair, to come in at this point, before it is even on the ballot and say, “Yep, we’re going to downsize you guys, you can’t have 35 feet (height of a single family home) anymore. You can only have 30.” I think that is a vote against annexation and it is a way of making annexation less attractive to people in that area. I think it is more appropriate for neighbors to get together and make up their own minds, the way we did in our city, about what their zoning restrictions are going to be.
Gregory: The main thing that they accomplished is the development of Parkplace and that was a very significant process. It cost the city quite a bit of money. And that was a unanimous vote.
I disagree with the annexation issue of zoning that just came up recently on development where they voted 4-3 not to take the approach they took on the last annexation, which was to leave the county zoning relatively intact and then take it to the neighborhood process to adjust it if they needed to. The choice not to leave the county zoning intact, or to downzone to Kirkland standards. So it is taking five feet off single family homes from 35 to 30 and taking 25 feet off of multifamily from 60 to 35. I think there are two issues there. I think the multifamily is the greatest impacted and it could lead to people trying to move too fast to take advantage of the county process, before annexation takes place, which would defeat what the whole intent was. Secondly, there is a development potential throughout those neighborhoods, particularly at the financial centers. We know that there is a financial impact of picking up the potential annexation area when we can have a greater financial return for the city and all the potential citizens of Kirkland that is to our benefit. I also think it is sending the wrong message to the people of the annexation area.
The council may take up the issue of installing some red-light cameras during the next session. What are the pros and cons of red-light cameras?
Tennyson: If you look at other city’s when they put them in – and almost all of them have put them in for revenue generation – and when it first starts it does generate a lot of revenue because you have people that are running red lights. But it doesn’t take people very long before they get it and they don’t (run red lights) and then it doesn’t generate revenue. I know that some of the cities that have them in are looking at taking them out now. Their drivers have been trained. It fosters safe driving habits.
Walen: I love red-light cameras but I am worried about the expense. But I do need to study it in more detail. I think the fundamental reason for government is to pay for services that people can’t afford on their own. Police, fire those things that are essential. Public safety is the number one priority of the city. So I would have to know, do we have a problem as far as safety goes with people running red lights. And if we do, then I would support red-light cameras. I do worry about the budget parts. The pro is that it improves public safety, the con is that it is expensive.
Gregory: I’ll take the cons first. Invasion of privacy seems to always be there, big brother is watching over you. Do cameras tell the whole story? There are arguments in court many times about what you see on the camera and whether it is in fact true or not. On the positive side, there are cities that have tried it and it seems to be working pretty successfully, some more so than others. I think the council is working with some of those cities that have had some success with them. I am not so sure what the whole motivation is, if there are many people running red lights or not. I question whether we have enough money to do it. I don’t know that it is a core item and if it isn’t a core item let’s spend that money elsewhere.
