Written by I received this question in council email today. Mayor Law answered it for me (see blog above)
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Corman, Randy; rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us; Denis Law
Cc: Julia Medzegian; Jay Covington
Subject: Re: I-985
Well put, Randy. I see I left out the word “after” (only after all the cost have been paid). If the Initiative is not clear, I would definitely choose to interpret that as after we paid ALL administrative costs. I’m hoping all City Depts would be given the chance to input their administrative costs.
From my circle of friends, this Initiative has a lot of backing…..
[citizen]
Denis-
Can you ask one of your team to look at the specific language of the
initiative again, and try to make the best interpretation possible on
this point. Mr. Morris is asking a good question, and I’m not sure if
the initiative is clear on what constitutes “excess funds”. I could
tell that even Tim Eyman was not sure, and I presume he helped write the
initiative.
We will probably have to answer from a “best interpretation” standpoint.
(For instance, it’s still not clear to me whether we could deduct
overhead for the court, administration of the system by the police
department, etc, from the money sent to Olympia)
Thanks!
Randy
—–Original Message—–
From: [citizen]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:27 PM
To: rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us
Subject: I-985
Hi, Randy;
I received the News Release about the Council unanimously opposing
I-985. In the announcement is this statement:
“If the initiative is approved Renton will generate photo-radar
enforcement revenues at the local level and send that money to the
state, with no assurance it will ever be re-invested in the Renton
community. Renton will be forced to eliminate the photo enforcement
program”
I don’t understand that. If I understand the initiate, the money sent
to the State is ONLY “after” all the costs have been paid. It would be revenue
neutral, wouldn’t it?
Thanks for your help.
[citizen]
Recent Comments