[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following Letter to the Editor was received via email from K. Scott Kimerer, Chairman of King County Police Chiefs on Wednesday Oct. 21st:]

In King County, there are over 35 police departments, the Sheriff, plus our state, federal, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Together, we are collectively sworn to protect over 1.8 million citizens. We meet monthly as partners in this effort to address the most pressing public safety issues facing our communities. At our October meeting, the King County Police Chiefs Association discussed the impacts that Initiative 1033 could have on our ability to provide basic police services.

Current economic conditions have already created serious budget cuts to police departments and diminished our ability to serve. The financial analysis of Initiative 1033 presents the real possibility that police protection could be significantly impacted as cities and counties address significant cuts in the funds to provide basic services. We are already seeing a reduction in police officer hiring. The Washington Criminal Justice Training Center has had a 30% reduction in enrollment this year at the academy.

82% of the cities in King County have a population of fewer than 50,000. It is likely that they will be hit the hardest as these cities must carefully manage precious financial resources to provide all of the needed services.

Like any service, police protection and access to justice in general has a threshold where further budget reductions will have measurable, negative impacts on the citizens. The King County Police Chief’s Association feels it is our responsibility to inform and to offer our perspective on the potential impact to public safety that I-1033 may have. We encourage citizens to be informed and ask their city governments, review their City Council meetings, or go to their city website to see what is being said regarding the effect I-1033 would have on their ability to provide police and other critical services that create our quality of life and safety.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review (for libel, etc.), we'll most likely post it.]

Story by Ralph Nichols
Photos by Scott Schaefer

Police chiefs from King and Snohomish counties voiced their concerns at a press conference in Burien Wednesday morning (Oct. 21) about potential impacts of Initiative 1033 on public safety – especially in smaller cities.

But they stopped short of opposing the revenue-limiting ballot measure. Public officials are prohibited by state law from campaigning for or against ballot proposals as well as candidates.

Instead, said Scott Kimerer, Burien police chief and chairman of the King County Police Chiefs Association, “People have a right to make their own decisions on how to vote. But they need to be informed….

“We are encouraging citizens to ask their city governments what effect I-1033 would have on their ability to provide services if it is successful.”

Kimerer and Des Moines Police Chief Roger Baker represented Highline cities at the press conference.

I-1033 would limit future growth in the revenue cities, counties and the state could take in, based on annual growth in inflation and population. Revenues above the limit would be used to reduce property taxes.

“Already reeling from tough economic times that have seen 15 to 20 percent reductions in revenues, the financial analysis indicates that police services, many of which have already experienced budget cuts this year, could be further restricted to the point of struggling to meet the needs of their citizens’ public safety concerns,” Kimerer said.

“Police budgets generally represent half or more of cities’ general fund expenditures,” he added. And there has been “a 30 percent drop in cities’ anticipated enrollment of new hires in the (state) police academy” in Burien.

The impact of I-1033, if approved in the November election, Kimerer said in response to a question, also could delay North Highline annexation by Burien, which now is expected to take place in late March. Residents of the southern part of the unincorporated area voted 56 percent to 44 percent in August to become part of the city.

Burien City Manager Mike Martin, who attended the press conference, concurred with Kimerer’s assessment.

“If people want less government, they will get less government,” Martin said. “There will be fewer departments and less people (police officers) on the street.”

Kimmerer said “the easily discernable impacts of I-1033 can be found by examining the general funds and budgets of the 82 percent of suburban cities in King County having a population of fewer than 50,000. These cities function with a small margin to provide all the needed services and are very transparent in their budget process and revenues.”

Statewide, 94 percent of all cities have populations less than 50,000.

Marysville Police Chief Rick Smith, chairman of the Snohomish County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, said his department experienced sharp cuts due to the recession this year. Further cuts, should I-1033 pass, “could impair our ability to provide services to our city….

“The whole criminal justice system (including prosecutors, courts and jails) would be impacted, maybe significantly,” Smith said. “We just don’t know. The bottom line is for citizens to ask officials what impact 1033 would have on their city.”

Any cuts in the budgets of local law enforcement agencies “minimizes our response,” he added.

One problem with I-1033, said one police chief who spoke on condition of anonymity, is that it “targets state government, large counties and large cities” without taking into account the different circumstances of smaller cities and counties.

RELATED STORY:

• LETTER TO THE EDITOR: King County Police Chief’s Association On I-1033

by Ralph Nichols

Burien City Manager Mike Martin is concerned – very concerned – about the likelihood that Initiative 1033 will pass in November’s general election. So much, in fact, that he’s exploring the possibility of a local referendum that could exempt Burien from the requirements of this tax-limitation ballot measure should it win approval statewide.

“If I-1033 passes, it will stop the city cold in its tracks,” Martin told The B-Town Blog. “The progress we’ve been making will just plod along if we no longer have the tools to build on what we’ve done so far. They’ll go away and that’s a fact.”

According to the ballot measure summary, I-1033 “would limit growth in state revenues … and limit growth in county and city revenues. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population…. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies.”

Burien City Council members voted 3-1 on Oct. 5 to oppose I-1033, with three opponents of the initiative absent.

Earlier, city Finance Director Tabatha Miller told them that restrictions imposed by I-1033 would be “problematic for Burien” because “it does not take into account commercial growth like that envisioned in the Northeast Development Area…. In essence, any commercial growth in the NERA or elsewhere which increased the City’s revenues could not be used to provide the supporting city services, but instead would decrease the next year’s property taxes.”

“If people want smaller government, we can give them that,” Martin said. “But that will have consequences in the way we serve our residents…. It’s safe to say that we would slow down or stop major projects in the works” – including new development in the Northeast Redevelopment Area, street and sidewalk work, and discretionary programs from parks to senior services.

“There’s a real potential for closing the city down for all or part of one day a week,” he added. “That is not being punitive, it is being responsive” if the ballot measure passes.

To sidestep these impacts of I-1033, Martin is considering proposing to the council “a referendum that would allow the city to opt out” of its requirements.

While this proposition allows voters to approve property tax levy lid lifts locally, Martin noted it also could impact grants and other sources of funding not covered by a levy lid lift.

That, he explained, is why he’s exploring the possibility of a referendum – despite the fact he isn’t sure whether a city legally can exempt itself from a voter-passed law. Currently he’s investigating the legality of such a move.

“If it’s possible for the city to opt out, I will propose to council that they place such a referendum on the February (special election) ballot.”

The Normandy Park City Council, in a unanimous vote, adopted Resolution No. 819, stating the council’s opposition to Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033 on the Nov. 3rd General Election Ballot.

The City Council’s action followed a presentation by City Manager Doug Schulze, which explained how Initiative 1033, if passed, will reduce future revenues generated by the City by a projected amount of $500,000 annually.

City Manager Schulze reported that due to revenue shortfalls in 2009, approximately $400,000 has been cut from the budget and additional cuts of $500,000 may be necessary in 2010 before any further reductions required by Initiative 1033 are considered. The City of Normandy Park has an annual operating budget of $4.3 million.

I-1033 is intended to reduce property taxes over time. Property tax is a regressive tax, which means the amount paid increases as the value of property (wealth) increases. As a result, if passed, I-1033 shifts the tax burden to progressive taxes (sales and utility), which is paid equally by everyone regardless of income or wealth. Based on the projected $500,000 annual impact to the City of Normandy Park, the benefit of I-1033 would be approximately $180 for the owner of an average home in Normandy Park. However, the owner of a $6.0 million commercial property in Normandy Park would see a benefit of approximately $1,200 annually.

And as you may recall, Burien’s City Council also voted to oppose I-1033.

by Ralph Nichols

Burien City Council members sharply rebuked Initiative 1033 at their meeting Monday night (Oct. 5th) and voted 3-1 to oppose the tax-limitation measure that appears on the November ballot.

Mayor Joan McGilton and Councilwomen Kathy Keene and Lucy Krakowiak voted to oppose I-1033. Councilman Gordon Shaw voted no. Although he offered no comment before casting his vote at this week’s meeting, Shaw spoke in support of I-1033 at their Sept. 28 session.

Deputy Mayor Sue Blazak and Councilwomen Rose Clark and Sally Nelson were absent.

According to the ballot measure summary, I-1033:

“…would limit growth in state revenues … and limit growth in county and city revenues. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population…. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies.”

“I’m very concerned,” McGilton said in reference to I-1033.

Keene said, “This initiative raises grave concerns for me, not only because of what it will do to our city but what it will do to the school district, the county and the state…

“It’s ill conceived in my humble opinion. There’s going to be some draconian cuts on all sides” if I-1033 passes.

She added that while “proponents say it eliminates waste in city government, I don’t see the waste that those who haven’t read the (city) budget see in it.”

Tim Eyman, the primary sponsor of I-1033, the latest in a series of statewide tax-limitation initiatives he has placed before Washington voters, disagreed with the opposing arguments.

I-1033 is intended to produce greater “fiscal discipline” on the part of local and state governments, he told The B-Town Blog. “They’ve got to have it now” in the midst of the current recession. “Now’s the most critical time, and they’re arguing that this is the worst time.

“The only way they can take more money (under this initiative) is to ask the people’s permission, not by making the economy worse by raising taxes.”

Eyman added that if government thinks it has it tough in the current economy, government needs to remember what it’s like to be a taxpayer. “Government is the most dangerous now because they’re thinking from their perspective. Desperately needed is fiscal discipline.”

by Ralph Nichols

Burien City Council members are expected to declare tonight (Oct. 5) their opposition to Initiative 1033 – Tim Eyman’s latest attempt to reign in government spending revenue.

At last Monday’s (Sept. 28) council meeting, the lawmakers agreed to place the ordinance against I-1033 on tonight’s agenda. Only Councilman Gordon Shaw demurred.

If approved by voters statewide, the proposition, which will appear on November’s general election ballot, would require state, county and city governments to limit their general fund revenues to the amount resulting from inflation, based on a federal economic indicator, and population growth. Any revenue exceeding that formula would have to be used to reduce property taxes.

City Finance Director Tabatha Miller has told council members that restrictions imposed by I-1033 would be “problematic for Burien” because “it does not take into account commercial growth like that envisioned in the Northeast Development Area…. In essence, any commercial growth in the NERA or elsewhere which increased the City’s revenues could not be used to provide the supporting city services, but instead would decrease the next year’s property taxes.”

Miller added that this would force “state and local governments to provide a benefit only to property owners rather than spending general fund revenues on services to benefit the entire community. Services such as education, economic development, transportation, parks, and public safety that have been adversely affected in recent revenue shortfalls are at risk of never recovering under I-1033.

Councilwoman Rose Clark suggested the proposition would but the city “in permanent recession mode,” while Councilwoman Kathy Keene said, “This is absolutely draconian. It’s just awful.”

Shaw countered that I-1033 “would make government take a good, hard look at what it is doing. If I-1033 had been on the books, then I think we would have looked at some of the things we’ve done recently differently.”

But Mayor Joan McGilton voiced concern that its effect “could mean further decreases in police and court services. This is very concerning to me.”

Council members also unanimously adopted a final statement of the city’s key legislative policies for 2010.

These include encouraging economic development, especially in the Northeast area; seeking funding assistance for transportation improvements and other infrastructure needs; opposition to unfunded legislative mandates on local government; seeking funding for local salmon habitat; strengthening local public safety, including emergency preparedness; monitoring legislation relating to annexation of North Highline; and seeking assistance to maintain the city’s parks and recreation system.

In other action, lawmakers unanimously adopted an ordinance amending the fee schedule for filling public records requests and adding a five-day response to these requests.

UPDATE 9/9/09: The schedule for public input on the city’s response to Initiative No. 1033 has changed: The Burien City Council will hear Pro and Con statements on Sept. 14th, then discuss it on Sept. 28th and consider a resolution on Oct. 5th.

PREVIOUSLY: The City of Burien is seeking public input at 7pm on Monday, Sept. 28th Monday, Sept. 14th considering a resolution regarding Initiative Measure No. 1033, the Tim Eyman-sponsored measure that would “limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies.”

Voters will choose to approve or deny this initiative on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd.

Opponents call 1033 the “Jobs Killing” Initiative because they allege it will cause thousands of public servants to be laid off from their jobs.

The City of Burien wants to know what its citizens think of this, pro or con, and are inviting all to come speak up at a public meeting on Monday, Sept. 14 28th, at 7pm. The meeting will be held at Burien City Hall, 400 SW 152nd Street, 1st Floor.

According to the description prepared by the Washington Secretary of State:

This measure would limit growth in state revenues deposited in funds subject to the state expenditure limit, and limit growth in county and city revenues deposited into the county and city current expense funds. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population. The limit also would apply to revenues transferred out of these funds. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies.

The “Voters Want More Choices” website argues “For” I-1033 with these arguments:

• In the state of Washington, “property taxes are completely out-of-control” wiht “huge levy increases, skyrocketing valuation increases, massive rate hikes. It’s obscene and unsustainable. Struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens are being taxed out of their homes.”
• “We don’t want Washington to be a state where only rich people can afford to buy and own a home.”
• “Citizens desperately need property tax relief, especially during these tough economic times.”
• “The overall tax burden imposed by state government, counties, and cities is growing exponentially.”
• Currently, “there is no cap, no ceiling, no lid, no maximum, no limit on how much they can take from us. There’s simply no way that citizens can afford to have government continue to grow at an uncontrolled rate.”
• “The Lower Property Taxes Initiative I-1033 puts a reasonable cap on our overall tax burden, requiring excess tax revenues collected about the cap used to substantially reduce property tax bills.”

Arguments made “Against” I-1033 by its opponents include:

• The concern that it could reduce critical public services at the state and local levels.
• Arguing that the historical cost increase of public spending in areas such as health care and education has exceeded the consumer price index, opponents of I-1033 say that if I-1033 passes, spending in these areas will not be able to grow at the levels they have historically grown at.
• The belief that government services will be reduced each year from the previous year.
• It is problematic because “The initiative is designed to lock in all the budget cuts that state and municipal governments are currently making, thus potentially killing thousands of jobs in the years to come.”
• “[T]his initiative is exact opposite of real reform. Instead of fixing what’s broken, it would make all of our lives worse. Much worse. We need real tax reform that improves stability and fairness in our tax system”.
• “Property taxes already have strict limitations on growth and levels. The result of these has been particularly hard on local governments, who have limited ability to raise other taxes.”
• “Shifting from the property tax to other tax sources makes our tax system less stable because property taxes are one of the least volatile revenue sources we have.”
• “The reality is that the whole concept of contrived, artificial limits on revenue is completely unreasonable to begin with. In practice such limits have been utterly unworkable. Other states, like Colorado, have imposed them and seen their quality of life suffer drastically as a result.”

Here’s the official release from the Burien cityfolk:

CITIZENS INVITED TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 1033 CONCERNS STATE, COUNTY AND CITY REVENUE

The Burien City Council will be considering a resolution regarding Initiative Measure No. 1033 concerns state, county and city revenue, on September 28, 2009. All interested parties who are for or against the ballot measure are invited to speak at the Council Meeting on Monday, September 14, 2009, at 7:00 pm. The meeting will be held at Burien City Hall, 400 SW 152nd Street, 1st Floor.

###

The City of Burien strives to provide alternate communication opportunities. Please contact the City Clerk’s office, 206/248-5504, twenty-four hours prior to the meeting for assistance.

This is a great opportunity to come share your thoughts with your elected officials, so be sure to mark you calendars for what will surely be a lively discussion.

To read I-1033 in its entirety, click here for a PDF.