During the March 5 City Council meeting, Councilmember Jamie Perry asked the question that I have been posing – in one way or the other – in letters to the editor. The question she asked during the discussion of alternate sources of funding for the 256th project, was (paraphrasing here): “What list dictates what projects would be funded using business and occupation (B&O) tax revenues? I didn’t vote for any list regarding the allocation of B&O tax revenues for specific street and road projects.”
No one on the council answered her question, although they all knew the answer: The Kent Chamber of Commerce, which fought vigorously against a B&O tax, made it perfectly clear to the City Council that all B&O revenue be used strictly for road repairs and not for any other city purpose.
It appears that the chamber also dictated that they would decide which street-improvement projects would qualify for funding (and 256th was not on their list).
Perhaps this agreement on the mystery list occurred during a workshop meeting – and some “memorandum of understanding” regarding which upcoming projects the chamber deemed OK or not OK didn’t reach Councilmember Perry’s (or Councilmember Albertson’s) desk before the vote on the tax. In any event, it wasn’t handled in a transparent manner.
Councilmember Ranniger made some excellent comments about finding alternative sources of road-project funding (other than always creating local improvement district (LID) assessments on property owners directly next to streets being improved) and the inequity of burdening a few for the benefit of the many who use this particular east-west corridor. It’s likely that everyone in Kent has used 256th in the last month. Some of the homeowners along this small stretch of 256th are elderly and would face a huge debt obligation that they can ill afford.
The issue of the B&O tax and just exactly who is in charge of the disposition of that revenue for city projects needs to be clarified. It’s my understanding that tax revenue funds are under the purview of the city – not the Chamber of Commerce.
Instead of burdening homeowners on this strip of road, why not use B&O tax revenue that was approved for road work? This seems like exactly the kind of project for which the tax was designed.
It also seems like the city engineers could modify the design and eliminate some of the features (e.g., the center-strip and sidewalk gardens) and downscale this project to save some money.
Don’t be in such a rush for the $2 million TIB grant and let’s spare the 256th-area homeowners from an unnecessary and unfair assessment. An LID is not the only answer for street improvements. Kent now has a B&O tax for this purpose.
– Sandra Gill
Talk to us
Please share your story tips by emailing editor@kentreporter.com.
To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.kentreporter.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 300 words or less.
