Comments on: Goodbye Kirkland, Hello Bothell - King County promotes annexation of PAA by Bothell

By: PAA resident

PAA resident — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:50:48 +0000

This conversation has been very interesting. I just would like to comment that the Kirkland City Council has made it clear that Kirkland service levels are going down with or without annexation. They can’t afford to keep current levels of service. It has not been said but I think it is implied that tax levels in Kirkland will have to go up to cover Kirkland’s deficit.
There was also an option with their proposals in May that annexation would actually help Kirkland financially and would take a lot of King County’s money and apply it to Kirkland’s debt. I listened to the council meeting in May — you can look it up online.
I have really mixed feelings about the whole thing.
At this point, I feel resentment towards the City of Kirkland for annexing Totem Lake and Juanita and promising our area that we would be next and then turning their noses up at us. I think it would be funny if Bothell annexed my area and I would literally have to drive through Kirkland (Juanita) in order to get to Bothell unless I drove through Kenmore to get there. It would be shorter to go through Kirkland. I frequent Salon Rae at Juanita Village, the Thai Restaurant there, Massage envy. I wonder how many unincorporated King County residents use those businesses versus bonafide Kirkland residents?
Since I heard that Bothell is looking into potentially annexing us, I started to take some parks and recreation courses there and signed my kids up too. They have a good program. It is farther than going to NKCC but it could potentially be my city.
I get a kick out of the people of Kirkland who complain that they would like to keep Kirkland small and quaint. Maybe it is just because I am a small town gal, but has anybody noticed that Kirkland extends from 520 to Redmond and all the way up to Totem Lake? Not very small in my opinion.
I don’t think Bothell will incorporate us. They have a more lucrative annexation area bordering them on the North (faster growing and commercial use). I also doubt that the PAA would likely vote to change addresses to Bothell since we have been Kirkland for many years. That would just be odd and a real hassle to change addresses with 25 + years of business and mail.
Anyway, I think in the end, we will stay unincorporated.
I do ask a few favors of Kirkland:Please 1) keep up your parks - especially Juanita Beach Park and the Bay Park next to it as I live real close. 2) Please limit zoning so that the traffic doesn’t get worse on your streets. 3) Please keep one or two extra patrol cars running since when there is an emergency in unincorporated King County Kirkland needs to respond since the sheriff often can’t get there.
I am sorry you will be paying higher taxes for all of this but I honestly would have been glad to help at one point. Thank you Kirkland for having such a lovely city and letting me enjoy it.

Thanks for letting me unload, there was a lot of sarcasm. I feel like Kirkland’s ugly duckling, at this point. I also wanted to make the point that I don’t think Kirkland’s ugly duckling annexation problem is going to go away anytime soon.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:49:20 +0000

LA,
As a point of clarification, the citizens of Kirkland WILL NOT be allowed to vote on annexation. If the City Council decides that Kirkland can suddenly afford annexation, then the PAA would be allowed to vote. As it stands now, Kirkland is not releasing the PAA to help Bothell annex the area. The Kirkland City Council has stated that the annexation issue is “too complex” to put to a vote for the citizens of Kirkland.

I share your thoughts that the people need to embrace growth in order to shape it to best suit the needs of the community. Kirkland is looking at enormous budget shortfalls and cannot afford expansion at this time. Thank you for your comments.

By: Local Architect

Local Architect — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:16:24 +0000

I think the PAA would fit better in Bothell’s planning and development system. Geographically, it makes more sense for Kenmore or Kirkland. But the anti-growth planners and citizenry in Kirkland make it tough gauge returns on an investment such as this. Bothell will do well while Kirkland would bankrupt. It seems silly but perspective and attitude can be the difference between success and failure and if the citizens of Kirkland vote no (if given a vote) than why should they have the PAA forced upon them. Same for Bothell. Do the PAA residents get to vote? I’m sure at some point they do and it will turn into another Fairwood v. Renton argument. Which leads me to another response in regards to:
“King County is paying for half of the cost of Bothell’s annexation study. Who paid for the four years of study that Kirkland has done? How much has been spent to date on annexation by the City of Kirkland? The cost have to be enormous as there have been countless meetings, staff presentations, fiscal studies, capital improvement studies and outside consultants and for what? Has King County paid for half of the bill or have the people of Kirkland been paying for this tab?”

Your tax dollars may finally be doing something for you; sending the PAA to Bothell and keeping Kirkland’s charm. I personally think growth in the KC metro area is something citizen’s should embrace so that it happens responsibly. If not, only those developers willing to fight tooth, nail and dirty get what they want, where they want it. Which is more often than not counter to the wishes the citizenry.

By: al czervik

al czervik — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:25:36 +0000

Rob,
Thank you for the discussion. I too think Kirkland is quite a nice place. But is it sustainable for the long term? I don’t happen to think it is without a major adjustment in expectations and expenditures. Even then, at some point the outside pressures will make it very difficult to maintian this nice place. You probably don’t remember when there were many airplane makers in the world. One by one they either went out of business or merged with one another. Today we have Boeing and Airbus. The analogy here is not too much different. On the financial side, I remember giving my kids an extra nickel of allowance once. The next week I gave them the original agreed upon amount. They asked where the extra nickel was? I said the week before I had made a mistake because I didn’t have the correct change. The Council’s comment about not lowering levels of service truly shows how much they don’t know about their own city finances. The shortfall in the annexation study has been and can be massaged. What is missing is a package presented to the annexation area that meets Kirkland’s realties. A menu of services based on what the city can afford. As recall the “deficit” was less than 4 mill. Surely these brain trusts who veto nearly every financially advantageous development can figure this out. Why this hasn’t happened I don’t know. It appears that there is no guts no glory in this City. What’s the worst that can happen? It gets voted down? Then you have an answer. Bothell can have them. If so and it appears so, we are all in for rude awakening of taxes. No I can’t prove that Kirkland will be successful at anything anymore than you can prove that doing nothing will make things “quite nice” for the longterm. There is strenth in numbers. History proves that. There you have it. Civil discussion and no shots fired!

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:22:08 +0000

Al Czervik,

Thank you for your comments and for engaging in an intellectual and civil dialogue.
Now then, back to the task at hand…

You, if I dare say so sir, you substantiate my points very well. We both seem to agree that neither of us has confidence in the City’s numbers for the annexation study. I have combed through them rather closely. I do not know to what degree you have done so, but you seem to have little confidence in them when you write, “I also don’t believe any of the numbers presented by the City. The assumptions were flawed from the beginning.”
If this is true, then how can you be in favor of annexation without the slightest assurance of financial success? Financial issues must not be of concern to you. I can assure you that fianicial issues are of utmost importance for every tax payer in town. When the annexation plan is fraught with risk and it almost doubles the size of a city during the depths of a budget crisis, I would suggest that financial issues should reign supreme.
You agree that the figures used by the City to calculate if it could financially survive annexation are “flawed from the beginning.” If so, upon what basis shall the citizens of Kirkland take a leap of faith that annexation wont be a financial disaster?
You ask, “if (I) have figures showing how Kirkland is sustainable within the existing boundaries?” With all due respect, it is incumbent upon the City to produce figures showing how Kirkland is sustainable with annexation! And they have tried. And they have failed. Besides, we both agree that the City’s analysis is flawed, so upon what basis must the citizens of Kirkland take the enormous risks involved with annexation? If you are familiar with the subject, it is the City which has made promises it has not been able to keep. It is the City which has changed the definitions under which annexation was to be considered when it did not pencil out financially. It is the City which asked the City Council to break their promise that annexation would have no negative impact on Kirkland citizens.

From the City of Kirkland annexation webpage:
“After nearly two years of study, the Kirkland City Council signaled its intent to suspend the City’s annexation efforts. During deliberations at the May 20 meeting, the City Council chose to defer a final decision on annexation due to the financial challenges the City is now facing.

Throughout the study, the financial challenges of annexation were the primary concern for the City Council and the residents of the City and potential annexation residents. Over the past six months, the City’s own financial picture has worsened as sales tax revenue has fallen and inflation increased. In late 2007 several events came to light that will directly impact the City’s financial projections…”

Since the City and I agree that annexation is not feasible now, perhaps you and I shall agree to disagree? I can quote statistics, charts, graphs and figures from the City’s studies all day, and I am happy to do so if it will help, however you have stated that all those figures are flawed from the beginning so we need to find another way… If you have suggestions I am open to suggestion.

I believe it is incumbent upon the City (or perhaps you, if you argue in favor of annexation) to produce evidence that proves that annexation:
1. wont lower Kirkland’s service levels (PROMISE Numbero Uno from the City Council). City’s study proves the opposite;
2. will not bankrupt Kirkland citizens by bringing higher taxes (even the City’s numbers show it can’t be financially feasible); and
3. will prevent Kirkland form withering on the vine if we don’t annex. Or conversely, can you prove that Kirkland will be successful if annexation passes?

I argue that Kirkland is quite a nice place as it is, thank you. We don’t need a risky land grab to enhance egos of elected officials or kowtow to special interest groups.

You and I agree that we can’t trust the City’s figures and I have absolutely no reason to believe that annexation would not actually be worse for Kirkland than the painful picture painted by the City’s own studies.

I thank you for the opportunity to share our opposing positions. I look forward to discussing other issues in the future.

By: al czervik

al czervik — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:33:23 +0000

Rob Butcher,
You substantiate my points very well. We agree on development as one of the answers to Kirkand’s financial problems. Where we differ is that I realize that there is no way that Kirkland can build their way out of this mess within the existing borders. I also don’t believe any of the numbers presented by the City. The assumptions were flawed from the beginning. Case in point was the drastic change in Police costs. It is obvious that the cops were told to come up with a plan. They are smart enough to ask for more (much more) than was needed. We did this at Boeing when asked how much we needed to design a new plane. We always padded the estimate. (sometimes our original estimate was right!) In the end the cops figured out how to make it work with less. Will it impact Kirkland in the short run? Maybe. Maybe not.
Service levels and response times were probably impacted wth the North Rose Hill annexation. However they also got a new bridge built across 405 to help that out. I would think that improved his service level as he lives in that area. The city was impacted much more by election of the likes of Asher, Hodgson, Burleigh and Greenway.
I don’t gamble and I know others do. That is fine. My guess is that some of the Council members were playing to a constituency that may not exist. Again short sighted and maybe some finally realized this. If it was the money then so be it. At least they figured out there was money there.
What seems to get lost in this discussion and in your analysis is that if annexation doesn’t happen service levels will have to change anyway. I will say it again that business as usual is not sustainable. The union contracts and benefits of City employees as they were at Boeing are out of control. This will change as the market does. The challenge now is for the City to get realistic about what the service levels should be. Adjust personell accordingly first and then come to the residents for more money.
I have attended numerous meetings over the years about Parks and traffic and side walks and all sorts of things to spend money on. I have heard about service levels on these things. I have also heard the Council devote money to the arts and other non-service level things. I have no doubt that service levels will be lowered. Will the new ones be ok? Probably. I am curious because of your extensive analysis and obvious passion for this issue, if you have figures showing how Kirkland is sustainable within the existing boundaries? I obviously feel that the city is not sustainable. I don’t know how old you are Rob but when you get to my age could have, would have, should haves become very clear.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:35:45 +0000

David,
You make a good point when you say, “If the retail was in place now, sales tax revenues would be up, we’d be able to eat and shop at more places locally instead of heading to Bellevue for computer stores, hardware stores, etc.” I could not agree more. I am deeply concerned that Kirkland is killing itself by not allowing development. If we can’t develop downtown and Totem Lake, who is insane enough to think we need to grow in unincorporated King County.

H.P.W.,
You are correct when you say that City Councilmembers can no longer say that Kirkland will not be affected negatively by annexation - if they are honest, they will admit that to your face but they would never wish to be quoted. Unfortunately for those who think they can go back on their word, in this era of YouTube, there are plenty of juicy contradictions from Study Sessions waiting to be mined. I would not characterize annexation as a pet project, although it was championed by three councilmembers who are renowned for their concerns about regional issues. I would never accuse a member of the City Council of not being an advocate for Kirkland, but regarding annexation, there are strong tendencies of some on the Council to ask “how high?” when King County says jump.
One Councilmember who was adamant about never allowing a casino within the city limits and waxed poetic about the social ills surrounding such businesses has now changes his/her tune when annexation needs more money. So for the small sum of an extra million dollars into the City coffers, are we to now believe the claimed social evils of casinos disappear when annexation is on the ropes? This behavior does look like a pet project when viewed in this light.

Al Czervik.
You make a good point that the economy is not sustainable without growth and I would propose we allow growth in our designated downtown areas rather than chase annexation thinking that the good folks who live there will be any more receptive to zoning changes in their neighborhoods to feed your stated need for Kirkland to grow. Zoning is what limits growth and if the people of Kirkland don’t want changes to zoning what makes you think the PAA will?
Your contention that we need to look further down the road for annexation to not be too expensive may be correct. As I see it I will be dead and buried long before annexation would ever benefit my family and the others in “old Kirkland” who will have been paying for this fiasco in taxes and lowered service levels which will never come back to what we enjoy today. That is one contention by some members of the City Council which is so disturbing to me. They know the numbers and the numbers say that KIRKLAND WILL HAVE LOWER SERVICE LEVELS IF ANNEXATION IS PASSED. But some choose not to mention that inconvenient truth since they have promised us that that would not be the case.
If you look closely at the financial analysis done by the City for annexation, within a few pages of where it notes that Kirkland citizens will need to subsidize the PAA to the tune of $50 million, it also notes this adjustment to the numbers:
“Two other key assumptions are the pre-FTE inflation rates of salaries and benefits, which have both been reduced in the 2011-2025 timeframe from levels predicted in the Base Kirkland Forecast.”
What this means is that wage and benefits costs rise so fast that in order to study annexation, the City had to artificially cap the rates of growth for both. There are only two ways this could happen: 1. The City slashes wage and benefits costs increases for City employees with annexation, or 2. the City hires fewer personnel with annexation, thus reducing the rate of cost increases but LOWERING SERVICE LEVELS for the City.
The poll we published on ways to help solve Kirkland’s budget problem, http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/08/help-solve-kirklands-serious-budget-problem/
pointed this out in a tongue and cheek manner by giving an option as “follow the city’s own recommendation made under the annexation study: reduce annual benefits growth from 10% to 6% for City employees.”
The joke was not well taken by some since no one in the City believes this is a realistic option. What no one else is telling Kirkland citizens is that lowering wage and benefits costs increases is the only possible way any annexation study could ever produce a fiscally sound option. Annexation, if passed by the City Council, will indeed lower Kirkland’s service levels forever. This is the truth about annexation that few in the City will admit in public. It is incumbent upon the City Council to level with the people and I have faith that they will do so regarding the true implications of annexation.
As to your other point about that past annexations have not been a big deal, I offer you the sentiment of Councilmember Dave Asher who stated that despite assurances to the contrary, the annexation of North Rose Hill lowered city-wide police service levels and they have never returned to their previous levels. Annexations are not without costs and the Council has sold this one as having no negative impact on the citizens of Kirkland. The facts about annexation just do not support such a promise.
Regardless of your stance on annexation, Al, I suggest you study the numbers closely. I have done so and I am more opposed to the plan now than I was when I first started looking at it. There is a lack of candor in how things are being presented to the community.
I also know the Councilmembers individual positions on this issue very well. There are a few who changed their stated reasoning for support of annexation almost on a quarterly basis during the past year and a half. Over and over as reports by the City came in showing annexation was not feasible as promised, they changed their stances accordingly. It has been entertaining to watch, to say the least. This is far from over. Stay tuned.

By: al czervik

al czervik — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:48:54 +0000

H.P.W., I don’t think most people believe that annexation is a pet project. Those of us who are retired don’t. Your question: Is it too expensive to do? Depends on how far down the road you look. Most successful companies spread the fixed costs among as many people and operations as possible. Whether you like or not this city is only going to fix the current financial problem. Without a long term strategy that includes getting more people to pay for the services they recieve this place is doomed. You can look at any number of other cities in the middle to eastern side of this state to see what happens when you don’t grow. there are countless examples across this country that my wife and i have seen on our travels. Right now the city is trying to tell us that business isn’t paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe that’s becasue the City council has symied development! I know for my family that if we could buy the things we need in this town we would shop here. Raising business taxes isn’t going to help and will discourage more from coming here. I retired from Boeing. As I recall they moved the corporate headquarters to Chicago.

By: H.P.W.

H.P.W. — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:12:26 +0000

The problem with the budget is that because we have a deficit we can’t consider any pet projects we may like or want. Annexation is one of those issues. If it is too expensive to do then the city should just llet it go. I remember hearing everyone in the city say over and over that annexing was a good thing that wont hurt Kirkland. They can’t say that anymore. Politicians who break promises will be reminded thanks to google search. I am proud we have google here. They could have a rail stop on their front door if we get our act together and build a rail system. I hope we don’t scare away the next google that wants to make Kirkland their home.

By: al czervik

al czervik — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:07:15 +0000

Having lived here through all the annexations I can tell all of you that it was not big deal. The excuse for not going forward with the north annexation is bogus. This finacial crisis is current management and City Council created. These guys spent tax dollars like the sailors from my ship during shore leave. Now they have squandered so much money that they can’t look beyond tomorrow and see that a larger population will help pay the bills for years to come. The hand writing is on the wall and waiting for the next election is fruitless. The opportunity will be gone. I watched and read the information on the sustainable economy. This economy and this city is not sustainable without growth. Fellow old timers like me won’t be around for too much longer. That is probably a good thing because this place will end up a suburb of some other City who looked ahead and took the risks just like the old City Councils did when I moved here. Everyone should read this opinion in the Seattle Times this morning. Although it is about Seattle it appears to be accurate here as well. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008113291_joni14.html