Kirkland City Council draft letter regarding Annexation
The Kirkland City Council has has written a draft letter to King County Councilmember Jane Hague and Executive Ron Sims regarding annexation. It spells out the difficulties the City Council has had attempting to abide by King County’s dictates. The letter is posted below.
At the May 20 City Council meeting, Mayor Jim Lauinger expressed how difficult it was to sit before Hague and Sims during a recent breakfast meeting. The Mayor was summoned so that the King County Executive could pressure Kirkland into annexing the Potential Annexation Areas (PAA). It was quite evident from the Mayor’s demeanor that Hague and Sims used strong tactics in an attempt to bend the Kirkland City Council to their will (there was no report of the use of thumb screws).
King County can no longer afford the ongoing high costs of the PAA and wants Kirkland to annex the areas to relieve King County of a $4.8 million annual burden. Kirkland has not annexed precisely because of this huge financial burden, hence the strong arm tactics from King County.
A few weeks later, Kirkland City Councilmember, Joan McBride revealed that she too had met with Sims and that Sims wanted one-on-one meetings with each of the remaining Kirkland City Councilmembers so he could “better understand their position.” It sounds like King County Executive Sims is going to work them over until they see things his way.
The use of strong arm tactics to persuade our City Councilmembers into a decision with which they are struggling is not welcome. Annexation is an issue that Kirkland has studied for years. If it were an easy thing to accomplish (not to mention financially feasible) it would have been signed, sealed and delivered long ago. The reality is that there is a strong likelihood annexation will make a bad financial situation in Kirkland worse and each successive financial report produced by the City has revealed this.
For now, the City Council has put annexation on hold so that we can deal with Kirkland’s own financial mess. The hope for proponents is that once the City has raised its taxes and lowered its service levels, annexation will be revisited some time in the Fall of this year. At that point, the hope is that annexation will be relatively less painful for Kirkland to swallow.
Several issues are at play here. Kirkland has chosen not to annex at this time, thus leaving the PAA in limbo. Other cities cannot annex the PAA while Kirkland refuses to release the PAA areas from its control. The financial picture for annexation has continually deteriorated throughout the study. The City Council believes that annexation is a good governance issue from a regional perspective and with regard to the GMA, but the adverse impact on Kirkland citizens has prevented them from proceeding to date.
At the April 15 Study Session on annexation, the City Council voted down annexation in a straw poll by a vote of 4 to 3. Annexation was described by councilmembers as “disastrous” and “financially reckless”. The results of the straw poll were:
- Mayor Jim Lauinger — OPPOSED
- Council Member Tom Hodgson — OPPOSED
- Council Member Jessica Greenway — OPPOSED
- Council Member Dave Asher — OPPOSED
- Deputy Mayor Joan McBride — FAVOR
- Council Member Mary-Alyce Burleigh — FAVOR
- Council Member Bob Sternoff — FAVOR
The primary arguments FOR and AGAINST annexation were:
FOR
- Regional responsibility to abide by the principals of the GMA;
- PAA residents need better services;
- Kirkland would have a larger say in regional issues.
AGAINST
- The financial reality of taking on this burden would cripple Kirkland for decades;
- Large tax increases and broad service level cuts would be in store for Kirkland citizens;
- Kirkland has its own structural financial issues it must deal with before it can think about annexations;
- The economic downturn made this the worst possible time to annex;
- Kirkland found itself chasing the “carrot” of state money at the detriment of sound civic policy;
- The enormous size and scope of this annexation was too much for Kirkland to absorb at once;
The City Council’s draft letter to Jane Hague and Ron Sims can be downloaded at http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/8h1_OtherBusiness9255.pdf
The text of the draft letter is here (emphasis added):
July 1, 2008
Dear Councilmember Hague and Executive Sims:
As you are aware, the Kirkland City Council has been actively engaged in a study regarding annexation of the three neighborhoods to our north. The City’s potential annexation area (PAA) represents a major increase in population and land area and will require a significant investment of resources. Throughout our study process, the long term financial implications of annexation have remained the primary obstacle to proceeding with an election. Despite the availability of State funding and the County’s offer of financial assistance, the City Council has been reluctant to proceed with annexation given the likelihood of having to increase the financial obligations to its present citizens and those of the PAA.
The City’s own financial condition has worsened since the annexation study was initiated. Kirkland has experienced decreases in sales tax revenue due to the overall economic conditions and the potential for additional decreases due to the loss of a major retailer and the competition from two new Costco stores in neighboring cities. Local economic conditions yielding high inflation coupled with a slowdown in new construction will force the City to raise taxes and reduce services just to balance the coming biennial budget. This is a serious challenge for our community that deserves our full attention over the next six months.
We appreciate the concerns expressed by King County and those of the residents of the annexation area regarding an uncertain future. It is not our intent to keep the PAA in an indefinite holding pattern. The Kirkland City Council believes that it is in everyone’s best interest to resolve our current budget challenges and then reconsider annexation. We anticipate that our budget process and actions will provide a clearer picture of our long term capacity to successfully serve a population that will nearly double our size.
Over the next six months, we understand that PAA residents, King County and neighboring cities may wish to explore alternatives to Kirkland’s annexation of the PAA. Although we are not contemplating amending Kirkland’s Comprehensive Plan to relinquish the PAA at this time, we will cooperate in any way we can to assist in alternative planning scenarios.
Kirkland maintains its commitment to regional cooperation and the principles of the Growth Management Act. Again, it is our intent to re-examine this annexation issue once our 2009-10 budget process is completed.
Sincerely,
Kirkland City Council
by James Lauinger, Mayor
Related Articles
8 Responses to “Kirkland City Council draft letter regarding Annexation”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
Cafe Juanita
Sponsored Ads
Since Mr. Butcher has said resorted to using derogatory remarks, regarding King County conducting due diligence, with his “strong arm” remarks and reference to supposed bodily harm with the thumbscrew comment, I’m calling a spade a spade; Spineless weasels.
Those who voted to table annexation need to come clean. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways in the big leagues, playing the poor victim to big bad county exec Sims and that ruthless council member Hauge. Give me a break. If the council members do indeed have principles for which they stand, surely they can manage a one on one sit down with Mr. Sims. If not, Kirkland is really in trouble. I call BS on the “strong arm” tactics that were supposedly used on these poor hapless small town folk. :ROLLSEYES:
Back to the spineless weasel comment…let the PAA go. Cut them loose. That would be the appropriate thing to do given the apparent politics and financial troubles the City of Kirkland is facing. Let another city, who actually has managed it’s resources correctly, do what the current council has miserably failed to do. The council has a civic duty beyond it’s city line, it’s a shame they don’t recognize that. Cut the PAA loose if you don’t have the cajones to stand before the citizens of Kirkland and say what you’re really up to.
BTW, Mr. Butcher, this particular report should be marked “Editorial” as it play fast and loose with the actual truths of whats going on with annexation and has instead favored your position of saving Kirkland from annexation. I thought this site was supposed to be reporting on the news, not manipulating it.
[Reply]
Fin,
For the record, I would like to respond to your comments. First off, this is a blog. We are not the New York TImes, nor are we the Associated Press. From time to time, my sense of humor and opinion sneaks onto these pages. I do not want to take this website too seriously and I hope you don’t either. Some serious issues, yes, but life is too short not to have fun, so when I write, I try to have fun with it.
In response to your statement: “Those who voted to table annexation need to come clean,” for the record, the vote was 5 to 2 with Councilmembers Mary-Alyce Burleigh and Jessica Greenway voting to end annexation and thus release the PAA from Kirkland’s comp plan allowing other cities to annex.
In response to your claim that this post should be titled as editorial because “it plays fast and loose with the actual truths of what’s going on with annexation…” I invite you to correct any error you think is in the post. And finally, I can’t let your last line go without a response. Sir or madame, if you think that the other news sources you read do not manipulate what they print, then I wish you well. This website does not intend to manipulate the facts, but I freely admit my opinion sometimes plays a roll in the story selection and content. That comes with the territory as this is a blog you are reading. I can assure you that every news source “manipulates” the news even if the reader is not aware of that fact. That is why it is always best to use multiple news sources and decide for yourself what the truth is. Thank you for your comments.
[Reply]
The politics behind this letter is that Bothell has made clear they want to annex the whole PAA and King County is very much happy to let this happen. City of Kirkland can’t fight this, but they don’t want to make it easy either, by releasing the PAA. Truth is City of Kirkland is not wild about this idea for many reasons:
–Impact of losing more than 1/3rd of existing fire department (one of the reasons Kirkland CC won’t release the PAA and risk losing the support of the labor vote).
–Loss of revenue from tax increases
–Loss of utility taxes (most in PAA pay Kirkland utility taxes)
–Loss of the 124th business corridor, inclduing the Toyota Dealership.
–Loss of regional strength
On the other hand, they worry annexation may upset the liberal apple cart that has been the Kirkland City Council for many years. And, admittedly, economically, this is a tough time for Kirkland. But increased taxes, or even a levy for the PAA, could overcome much of this, not to mention the keeping of revenue from the casino and Toyota of Kirkland (and others likely to re-locate to a new auto row).
King County is going to help Bothell try to annex the whole PAA. And Kirkland will have to stand by and watch or act (can you imagine the outcry if the city spent precious resources fighting annexation to Bothell in court, after the essentially said they didn’t want the PAA). Bothell isn’t going to wait 6 - 9 months and loose the shot at the state sales tax revenue sharing, Bothell is moving now. Expect to see a group of citizens petitioning Bothell, Bothell will ammend it’s comp plan by end of this year and move forward with a vote by end of next year. The PAA is feeling pressure with continued threats of lower police coverage and other services and will likely feel they have no choice but to join Bothell, which by the way has virtually no bond debt and is in a strong financial situation.
The city could make annexation economically feasible, even favorable, with a little creativity. But I wonder if that would really matter in swinging the anti-annexation people to pro. Seems many just don’t like the idea of a preceived “different-class” of people, and a more conservative group, becoming part of the Kirkland Political Scene. IMHO.
[Reply]
My understanding is that a levy for the PAA could not be done by the Kirkland City Council, but perhaps I am mistaken and it was just a policy decision that they made. I also suppose that the PAA could vote their own levy to encourage annexation by Kirkland.
As for the sum total of the financial advantages mentioned in the last post, the City Council already searched high and low for every possible benefit from annexing, and they still concluded that it would be a drag on the city coffers.
For the sake of the PAA, I hope that Bothell is enthusiastic about annexing it.
[Reply]
Let it go! While I do not appreciate King County pushing anything on Kirkland, I can get why our inability to release this is forcing the issue.
We do not need the woes of adding all this populus to our city. Let Bothell/Woodinville envelope the areas. On to the next issue!
PS - I like the stretch machine better than thumb screws…..
[Reply]
Kirkland should let it go and stop trying to have it both ways. Jane Hague is looking out for the people of her district in the PAA. Whatever city is willing and able to put the choice in front of the voters of the PAA should be allowed to move forward. Initially, I wanted to be a part of Kirkland. After watching their council in action (Mary Alice excepted), I say bring on Bothell.
[Reply]
Well, folks, it looks like this bride may be leaving Kirkland at the altar and looking toward Bothell as the PAA’s new suitor. You really can’t blame the PAA… Kirkland’s cold feet and second thoughts about this arranged marriage. This is evidenced by the latest delay for a decision until after Kirkland fixes its own budget problems… at the end of the year! Then you know Kirkland will have to conduct another study, or two, or three…
Note to OneKirkland.com: perhaps it is time to change your website to OneBothell.com? I just looked it up and it is still available!!!
In all seriousness, if Bothell can make annexation work financially, I think that would be a good option for the PAA because service levels are not going to rise in the PAA until they get annexed. King County will let them wither on the vine and Kirkland is in a budget morass.
[Reply]
Rob, thanks for the response. I understand exactly where you’re coming from and what a blog is. However, you’ve created something beyond the typical blog. Whether you realize it or not, you’ve created a local news site by starting off reporting all things development. I appreciate that this posting is marked opinion, didn’t notice that earlier, my bad. BTW, excellent quote in today’s Reporter.
What folks in Kirkland need to understand is the unique nature of living in an unincorporated urban area, while missing out on the benefits of belonging to a city. Want to pull a permit, you have to take a day to drive down to King County’s Development offices in Renton. Want to purchase a boat launch key? Sorry, going to cost you double, doesn’t matter that your mailing address says Kirkland. Think people are driving a bit too fast down your street, keep the kids off the sidewalks when living in the PAA because King County doesn’t care. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture how frustrating that can be when your neighbors a quarter mile away have the city services one expects when living in an urban area. I’m going to venture a guess that many of us moved into the PAA not realizing that we had to go to King County for all of our services. Lesson learned. Now let us pay our fair share to get the services one should get when living in an urban area.
That’s great news about Bothell’s interest in annexation of the PAA (is there a verifiable source??). Given their perceived financial stability, it will most likely be a greater benefit to the PAA, not being saddled with Kirkland’s huge expenses (read tax increases spread across a few) while still being able to enjoy Kirkland parks (such as Juanita Beach) and downtown without having to pay for it. And you (Kirkland Residents) will be paying for it. Given the nature of how cities in Washington operate, with all the anti-development sentiment, the city will have to either cut services or raise taxes. You better hope the developers of Totem Lake are able to score a WalMart, you guys are going need the sales tax revenue.
[Reply]