Thank you for your question. First of all, Mr. Robinson and I disagree on the need to increase taxes. Mr. Robinson believes we have a revenue problem and he wants to increase the head tax and/or implement a B&O tax. He doesn't talk about increased services for those taxes. Increasing the head tax has been the easy way out for the City in past budgets. Before increasing any taxes, I want to prioritize our spending and look for operational efficiencies. Then the conversation is about raising taxes for specific services or stop providing those services. The City's residents and businesses are willing to pay taxes IF they know what value they are receiving in return. Regarding small and large businesses, the State Constitution does not allow different tax rates based upon the size of the business. We have the choice of taxing based upon heads or based upon gross revenues. Microsoft captures its revenues in Nevada and Delaware, therefore a gross receipts tax may leave MS paying less. I also think a gross receipt tax is unfair to smaller businesses living on smaller profit margins. So with limited choices, I prefer the head tax. The City uses about half the head tax for transportation improvements and the remaining for services.
Collapse

Redmond is no longer a bedroom community. We must shape the growth around us instead of allowing the growth to shape us. A proactive vision of the city and services we want will help ensure we enhance our quality of life.

One measurement of a successful city is a place where you can live happily for all phases of your life. This means providing housing, transportation and recreation choices. At different ages, you need different options. Out of college you need an apartment. A new family may need a single family house with a yard for the dog. Once your youngest child graduates, you may choose a condo so you can travel without worrying about yard work.

To allow these housing choices to be affordable, the city needs to increase the supply of housing units and implement the proper transportation infrastructure. The first place to start is to focus density in our urban centers. I am concerned that the City is spreading density evenly throughout, like peanut butter on bread, reducing housing choices, making everything the same, and diminishing the character of our neighborhoods.

Matching land use with transportation infrastructure is another important action needed to maintain the quality of life. That is why I want to connect downtown Redmond with a Sound Transit stop.

Using transit to connect key sites on the Eastside will improve usability. Currently, I can get to downtown Bellevue or Seattle during rush hour, but anywhere else is a major challenge. Most of the congestion on the Eastside is from people traveling from one Eastside destination to another.

We need a regional mass transit system. I am supporting the transportation package this fall. I am disappointed it does not go all the way into downtown Redmond, but light rail will be closer to the City than if the package fails altogether.

For Redmond to increase the housing supply, we need to catch up with our infrastructure needs so the private sector wants to build here. For example, Redmond zoning calls for five story multi-use buildings in the downtown. The City Council shows great vision here. However, the City’s water system only has the capacity for one story buildings. Currently a developer would have to build the whole system out to construct one building in downtown. As Mayor, I would install the water pipe that matches the land use plan and use debt and hook up charges to finance the project so that growth pays for itself.

Collapse

Mayor Ives and I disagree on a budget strategy. She requested an 11% increase to the budget, however revenues were only increasing 9%. To balance the budget, she proposed cutting money in the capital program to fund parks and transportation. This is not good financial management because it is not sustainable. In response, Mayor Ives claims Council cut her budget 2%, when, in reality, we limited the growth to 9%.
Collapse

I am a strong believer in the Open Meetings Act. As Mayor I would give more and better notices of meetings and decisions to get the public involved.

This accusation has been around since last December and it is specifically aimed at the budget process. The Mayor and Council were hammering out the budget. The last issue was the gap between the 11% increase Mayor Ives requested and the 9% limit that the majority of Council members felt was appropriate.

As Chair of Finance, I went through the budget to see what could be changed. At the next meeting, I reminded the Council that it was our job to set the spending limit and the Mayor's job to decide how to spend it. I urged the Council to limit the budget increase to 9%. Then I produced a spread-sheet with one of many ways a 9% increase could be achieved with a balanced budget. Richard Cole, Pat Vache, John Resha and Nancy McCormick were satisfied the option presented met the 9% goal and supported moving ahead.

Mayor Ives, Jim Robinson and Kim Allen assumed that there must have been a meeting to discuss the issue since 5 Council members agreed to move forward with a budget limiting growth to 9%. Although I pointed out that the majority of Council members had already agreed to a 9% budget increase at two prior Council meetings, Mayor Ives asked for a formal investigation into alleged "secret" meetings. A full review was performed and all allegations were found to be without merit.

Collapse

My daughter and I walked up the 100th street corridor on Sunday (June 10, 2007) and I could see the clearing that was done at Perrigo Heights. I have many emotions about this event. I have seen many forested areas where I played as a teenager become housing developments.

As you know, Perrigo Heights has been an emotionally charged issue for a few years. Many neighbors requested the City purchase all of the land and preserve it as a park. The Parks Board and the City Council have been aware of the request for the City to purchase the land.

The City did purchase a portion of the land to buffer the trail that runs up 100th street. This reduced the plat from about 36 homes to about 24. The Council was very aware of the community's concern, but, in general, the land was considered very expensive and Education Hill is served by more parks than any other neighborhood in Redmond. With limited resources, we were unable to purchase the entire plot.

Forbidding development was not an option. A property owner retains his rights to build with in the community standards. This issue has been discussed with community input in previous years.

Collapse