Kirkland Mayor Joan McBride recently told the Great Kirkland Chamber of Commerce that the proposed bill in Olympia to slash the Annexation Sales Tax Credit (ASTC) would devastate the city’s budget.

In her speech, she called on the state to keep its “promise” to cities that stepped up to help counties and the state during financially difficult times for everyone.

But these are not broken promises.

In a legal business context it could be considered fraud. It is a time-tested and underhanded way of doing business called bait-and-switch.

The ASTC was set up to help cities with the cost of taking over unincorporated county lands. Most of these areas are residential neighborhoods with limited sales-tax revenues. The ASTC was a way to give these cities a greater piece of the tax pie in order to fund the transition.

It was also implemented in a limited way. The ASTC is only good for 10 years, giving cities time to find new sources of revenue to replace the ASTC.

Instead, the state and county got what it wanted, annexations of more than 100,000 residents, and are now doing more than just breaking promises.

They are putting public safety at risk.

For many cities, the loss of the ASTC is devastating. It has even led some cities, which have not completed their annexations, to threaten to pull out of the deal.

For Kirkland, which annexed the Kingsgate, North Juanita and Finn Hill neighborhoods last June, that is not an option.

The proposal by the governor hits Kirkland hardest for two reasons. The first is that Kirkland’s annexation of 31,000 residents is the largest single annexation to receive the ASTC.

The second is that the bill calls for a cap to the ASTC based on the first year’s revenue. Kirkland’s first year of ASTC payments began September 2011 and will end June 2012. That is 10 months and not 12, cutting the amount the city would get another 17 percent.

Overall, the city stands to lose 35 percent of the ASTC originally “promised.”

But legislation should not just be looked at as a promise, especially in this case.

That 35-percent cut to annexation revenues will have to come from somewhere. It could come from parks, development services, public works or utilities. But in all reality some will have to come from public safety as it is 57 percent of the cost of annexation.

This also puts the city in a difficult position as they did promise pre-annexation Kirkland residents that they would not subsidize the new neighborhoods. So if that 35-percent has to come solely from the new neighborhoods’, services would drop dramatically.

Even if the city does choose that route, as opposed to finding the funds city wide, it will ultimately cost all the citizens of Kirkland.

Reducing police staff in the annexation area does not mean that the city won’t respond to calls. So if a call comes in on Finn Hill that needs a great deal of resources, someone in Houghton may not see emergency personnel as fast if they dial 911 at that time.

Most people, Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever, believe that public safety should be the government’s first priority. By taking these “promised” funds away from cities they are diminishing public safety to save other less-important programs.

The state baited cities into going through with very costly annexations in order to shore up their budgets. It is time for the state to keep its “promise” to cities that have stepped up and stop committing fraud against partner cities that have tried to do their part.

It is also time for Kirkland citizens to let their legislators know how they feel about this proposed bill.

Contact bill sponsor 48th District Rep. Ross Hunter at 360-786-7936 or 425-453-3064 or via email at ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov.