Jim Berrios responds to letter from four Kent City Council members on property taxes | Letter

I read the response that four of the Kent City Council members, (published in the Oct. 14 print edition) submitted to the Kent Reporter editor addressing my letter submitted to them Oct. 4th.

I would like to respond first by saying that it is a sad day in Kent for local politics. I would also question the legality of their letter as it was signed by four of the seven council members, representing a quorum. However, it was never covered in an open public meeting, in fact it wasn’t even covered with all seven of the council members prior to being sent out to not only the editor, but to all internal city email users.

Again, this was done without the knowledge of all of the City Council members. Could it be that the council members themselves are divided on this issue?

Their letter suggests that I have made false statements in my letter to the City Council. I would like to know specifically which statements were untrue. The information that I have provided in my letter came from the number of meetings and conversations that I have personally had with the city administration, council members, fire chief and other fire department representatives. One important aspect of my letter was the video link that I had attached from the Sept. 21, 2010 City Council meeting, where council member Ron Harmon clearly addressed the concerns with the over collection of $4.94 million, which was confirmed by the city’s finance director, where he clearly indicated that Harmon’s information was accurate.

I find it interesting that in the letter from the four council members, there is no response to what was said at that meeting. In addition, there was no response or reference to the letter that the Kent City Chamber of Commerce had submitted to the council requesting that the city of Kent reduce all property tax in the city by reducing the city’s levee tax rate equal to the agreed upon $4.94 million. That letter also went on to state; “This effort by the city of Kent council will hopefully repair and restore trust in the governmental process, which has clearly been eroded by their decision in 2011 to sweep the additional revenue into the general fund instead of refunding it to the taxpayers of Kent.”

Why is it that the focus is only on what I had to say?

The letter was submitted to the council after the Chamber had polled its members in a survey where the majority requested to have the money not included in the future budgets. The letter from the four council members suggests that they “want to set the record straight.” I would like to point out that as a citizen and a business owner in this community “setting the record straight” is exactly what I have been trying to accomplish. That is why I would like to suggest that since the ballots have already been mailed to the registered voters of Kent that the council should call for a public meeting before Nov. 8 to discuss the facts of this issue with its citizens. I would also recommend that we have channel 21 (the local television station) and the Kent Reporter cover this event. The city administration and members of the fire department, chief included, should be present and available for questions. I would recommend that the meeting should open by playing the Sept. 21, 2010 council meeting video, and asking the question, “What did the city finance director mean when he confirmed that the information presented by Councilman Harmon was correct?”

How is this for transparency?

Jim Berrios

Kent