City’s stand against taxes doesn’t stop ballot measure
August 5, 2010
By Tim Pfarr
The City Council passed a resolution at its July 6 meeting officially opposing a countywide increase in taxes to fund public safety and the court system, which the King County Council had been discussing. Regardless, the County Council voted two weeks later to create a ballot measure calling for a sales tax hike.
“It was important to weigh in,” Mayor John Dulcich said about Newcastle’s resolution, despite the fact that it wasn’t successful in preventing the County Council from creating the ballot measure.
Now, voters will decide in November whether to approve a .2-cent-per-dollar countywide sales tax increase to fund public safety, the court system and a new Youth Service Center courthouse in Seattle.
If the ballot measure passes, 60 percent of the new revenue will go to the county for criminal justice, and the remaining 40 percent will be given back to cities.
Newcastle’s resolution
Specifically, Newcastle’s resolution stated that the county should not ask for a sales tax increase prior to doing everything it could to trim costs. It stated that the city understands the need for a robust police force, and cited that the city was able to turn its budget deficit into a surplus earlier this year.
The vote to approve the resolution was 4-3, with Councilman Sonny Putter and councilwomen Lisa Jensen and Carol Simpson dissenting.
“It’s important for us to try to influence the debate in the county,” Councilman Bill Erxleben said.
He and Councilman Rich Crispo brought the resolution forward.
“We feel that the easy way out is to just raise taxes,” Crispo said at the meeting. “That isn’t good enough.”
Dulcich and Deputy Mayor Steve Buri spoke with a similar sentiment, and in an interview after the meeting, Dulcich said the resolution was not intended to keep money from public safety, but to make the point that cuts should be made elsewhere, so taxes aren’t needed to fully fund public safety.
“Public safety is huge to me,” he said, adding that he felt the county was being disingenuous by using public safety as the poster child for its budget cuts.
The three who dissented expressed concerns about the resolution’s timing and the message it sent.
“I think this resolution is presumptuous, unprecedented and premature,” Putter said at the meeting, adding that he felt it was insulting and demeaning to the county’s efforts to resolve its own budget issues.
“It is far too premature for us to poke our finger in King County’s eye when specific ballot measures haven’t even come forward,” he said at the meeting.
Also at the meeting, Simpson said passing the resolution would be like hitting the county with a sledgehammer. She said it sent the message that Newcastle has solved its own budget problems, and that the county should be able to do the same. She said that was embarrassing, as the county provides many services that the city does not.
The city’s contract attorney, Dawn Reitan, cautioned the City Council at the meeting as to how it publicizes the resolution. She referred to the Revised Code of Washington section 42.17.130, which states that no person appointed or elected to a public office may use public resources to assist in the election of a candidate or to promote or oppose a ballot proposition.
Given this advice, Dulcich opted to publicize the resolution personally, and he sent the resolution to local newspapers, members of the Bellevue City Council, King County Councilman Reagan Dunn and King County councilwomen Kathy Lambert and Jane Hague.
The County Council’s decision
The County Council voted to create the ballot measure in a 5-4 vote July 19. The vote was down party lines, with Democrats voting in favor of creating the ballot measure, and Republicans voting against it.
Dunn, Lambert and Hague were among the Republicans who voted against creating the measure. Each said the Newcastle ballot measure had no impact on his or her vote.
However, Dunn and Lambert said they appreciated Newcastle’s stand against taxes.
“I do like to hear from the municipalities in my district,” Dunn said. “I think it’s entirely appropriate and appreciated.”
He said he appreciated that it came in the form of a resolution as well.
“When they put a formal resolution forward, it gives it more traction,” he said.
Hague said she particularly appreciated how the city took a stand on its own.
“You were the first city that said we don’t need it,” she said.
Lambert had not seen the resolution before voting against the ballot measure.
Although members of the Newcastle City Council were unable to prevent the creation of the ballot measure, they maintained their positions.
“We still feel the same way,” Dulcich said. “At this point, it’s up to the voters to decide.”
Crispo agreed.
“I think we certainly had a right to express our position,” he said.
Erxleben said the County Council’s vote was disappointing, and that the five Democrats who voted to create the ballot measure are out of touch with county residents.
“I just think that it is the wrong policy at the wrong time,” he said. “We just felt like they led with their most appealing problem — public safety — in order to scare a tax increase.”
On the web
Read the full resolution on Newcastle News’ website — newcastle-news.com
Comments
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
