Annexation – Facing a tough choice
By Robert L. Style
KOMO TV’s coverage of the missing or mutilated yard signs had three major points, one from each side of the annexation issue and one from the media.
The media harped on what was happening to the signs. They thought it was news. What should have been news were the reasons why the signs were vandalized.
KOMO relied on the spokesperson for each side to make their point. On the pro side, the spokesperson had two issues, one was the mutilation and missing signs, the other was that a Kirkland city survey of the PAA indicated that 75% of the PAA wanted annexation. She and KOMO failed to mention that the opposition’s signs that were also vandalized.
In the KOMO interview with the spokesperson against the annexation, he disavowed any connection between the no-annexation group and the sign mutilation. He and his committee made statements supporting freedom of speech and want whoever is vandalizing the signs to stop. That was cut from KOMO’s coverage but was covered by the Kirkland Reporter. I did not hear any disavowing statement from the pro annexation group saying they had no part in the missing signs of the opposition.
In regards to the 75% wanting annexation, the City of Kirkland paid for and controlled the survey. Instead of insisting on a petition method of annexation whereby the citizens could have known if they had enough signatures to support annexation, the city proceeded on their own hoping to control the vote and given them the ability to deny Kirkland citizens a voice on annexation. The Kirkland council was biased and not transparent as to why they chose to ignore the petition method in favor of a city-initiated process.
If the 75% figure is used as justification for voting for annexation, then the 2005 financial report that was generated at the same time as the city survey should also be used. It said annexation was not financially feasible, something the spokesperson for annexation conveniently overlooked.
The spokesperson against annexation tried to stick to the issues of annexation. KOMO though the vandalized signs were more important. In a way, KOMO may have been right. Whose signs were destroyed and by what method is indicative of the high emotions stirred up on both sides. For now, the signs were the news, not the issues. After the election, the results will be the news.
If the people of the PAA want to know how their vote will affect them, they need to be informed. They should have been given the opportunity to petition the city but they were not. Now they have to rely on the media and blogs.
Once the PAA votes, it will be up to the Kirkland council to accept it or not. It’s a tough choice. If the people vote for annexation and the city accepts it, it will fly in the face of the Kirkland citizens who will have to pay more for less. Who will the council represent, the citizens who elected them, themselves, or someone else?
Print This Article
Posted by Robert L. Style on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 7:49 am
Filed under Elections, Headlines, Letters · Tagged with Annexation, Letters, PAA
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Style,
As the chair for Citizens for One Kirkland (CFOK), I will for at least the third time on this website say I do not want any supporters of annexation to even touch the “No” signs. I will also say that I have not removed any “no” signs, nor has any one from CFOK. Can you hear me “disavowing” now?
The signs became news because of the extent of the theft and vandalism.
I agree, the voters should be informed.
Over the more than 200 years of our American history, elected officials have often done the right thing for those who didn’t vote them into office. If they had not had the principles to do the right thing, only male landowners of European descent would be voting in this election.
This election isn’t just about money, it is about community. I believe that the entire Kirkland community, both incorporated and unincorporated, can work together to improve our lives and the lives of future residents.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
4
I’ll ask everyone to go look at the PSE substation on 132nd. Read the article in this week’s reporter, then ask yourself, do I want to have this group (Kirkland city council) of folks empowered to make decisions for me and my family. My answer to that was a resounding NO!!
VOTE NO on Annexation!! We can do better! We can form our own city. VOTE NO on annexation.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
11
here is another reason to VOTE NO on annexation….
By Kiri Rennaker
Dear Editor,
Having served on the Planning Commission for over nine years, I have had the opportunity to work closely with a majority of the current Council members. I have worked with Jim Lauinger, Mary-Alyce Burleigh, Tom Hodgson, Jessica Greenway and most recently, candidate Karen Tennyson.
With the exception of Mary-Alyce Burleigh, who has served tirelessly and with integrity for many years on behalf of Kirkland citizens, each of the other above-mentioned councilmembers have shown a blatant disregard for process, ethics and the law. And the unfortunate truth is that they currently run our City. Jim Lauinger, Jessica Greenway and Tom Hodgson, together with Dave Asher, comprise what is commonly referred to as The Gang of Four, the existing power on the dais as well as behind the scenes.
This is the main reason I cast my vote NO!! VOTE NO on annexation
A blatant disregard for process, ethics and the law. Do we in the PAA really want this kind of government??
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
3
Mr. Style,
Are you saying that if emotions run high, it’s ok to destroy the opposing opinion’s signs and efforts? I feel strongly about the the reasons WE SHOULD annex, including better services and taxes and because I am part of Kirkland in many ways. Also because I would rather be part of Kirkland than Kenmore, Bothell or Woodinville, which will be by choices if this fails. Should I then go vandalize the “no” signs because I feel strongly. Would that be justtified under your “understanding why people are violating the signs.”
I would also point out. All the signs appear to be targeted by one or two people as they damage is the same among them all. I would not say that indicated a lot of people with high emotions around the issues, but a couple with high emotions and questionable ethics.
It’s not a matter of if we will be annexed, buy by who. For most of us…Kirkland makes more sense and it’s where we feel affiliated. And our taxes will stay the same, while our voice and our services will be stronger.
Thank you for weighing in. I do think people should be informed…with the truth…unfortunately, there is a lot of grey areas I see the no side exploit. And the recent vandalism just further makes me question those opposed.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
4
That is nonsense; the city of Kirkland is 19 million dollars in debt. All of us in the PAA have to pick up that tab. The idea your taxes will be lower is a foolish thought. How will the city make up the ongoing shortfall? Yep, you’re right; they will have to RAISE TAXES!! They will have no other choice. VOTE NO on annexation!! The other choice is HIGHER TAXES…. Vote NO on annexation.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
15
The term debt is being improperly used here. The “bonded indebtedness” we will vote on is to pay back bonds (similar to a mortgage obligation) that were issued to build a fire station and improve a number of parks, including Juanita Beach. The debt repayment accounts for 11 cents per thousand of the property tax rate we would have with Kirkland. It is included in the property tax rate that is 14% lower than King County’s.
The “19 million dollar debt” is really an estimated deficit for Kirkland in about the year 2021 if the city’s assumptions are correct and nothing changes. Things will have to change along the way because the City must balance its budget every year and cannot use debt to finance operations. What will change? It could be spending, taxes, or the economy. No one knows for sure.
But consider King County, its current year deficit is expected to be 50 million dollars.
We know cuts are headed our way. At every public meeting on annexation, a King County representative has said they will be cutting our services. Do you trust King County to not raise taxes?
Check the property tax rate of the cities surrounding us, they are all higher.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
8
Just in the interest of facts about tax rates in cities in King County, the definitive source is at http://www.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/~/media/Assessor/PropertyTaxes/RateBook09.ashx, specifically page 5, which lists the tax rates for all the cities. Here are the property tax rates for the cities in King County, sorted from highest to lowest (in dollars per thousand):
SEATTLE, 2.58127
TUKWILA, 2.37324
RENTON, 2.36923
SEATAC, 2.33931
SNOQUALMIE, 2.23736
KENT, 2.18029
SAMMAMISH, 2.03573
ENUMCLAW, 1.92515
NEWCASTLE, 1.69918
SKYKOMISH, 1.62584
BLACK DIAMOND, 1.52072
MILTON, 1.51872
AUBURN, 1.48678
DES MOINES, 1.42155
ALGONA, 1.37797
REDMOND, 1.34727
DUVALL, 1.33445
BOTHELL, 1.27256
BURIEN, 1.26467
NORTH BEND, 1.22685
KENMORE, 1.19968
SHORELINE, 1.16412
LK. FOREST PARK, 1.14052
KIRKLAND, 1.13712
ISSAQUAH, 1.12524
PACIFIC, 1.10000
MAPLE VALLEY, 1.07571
BEAUX ARTS, 1.07289
CARNATION, 1.04228
WOODINVILLE, 1.02109
MERCER ISLAND, 1.00407
NORMANDY PARK, 0.98250
COVINGTON, 0.98104
FEDERAL WAY, 0.97189
BELLEVUE, 0.93684
MEDINA, 0.74973
YARROW POINT, 0.54207
CLYDE HILL, 0.50996
HUNTS POINT, 0.29937
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Also, if people want the definitive listing of the City of Kirkland’s actual current debt obligations, they are spelled out in exhaustive detail in the city budget, http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/Assets/Finance+Admin/2009-2010+Final+Budget+Documents/Non-Operating+Debt+Service+Funds.pdf. The “schedule of long term debt” appears on page 289 of the budget, which is page 7 of that PDF. The “voter approved debt” of which the residents of the PAA are being asked to assume our proportionate share has an outstanding balance of $8,090,000 (of an original $15,530,000). This money was used to build the Forbes Creek fire station, provide upgraded police and fire radio equipment, and improve Juanita Beach Park and other parks and playfields — all of which benefit residents of the PAA now and would continue to benefit us in the future. It is only right that we be willing to pay a share of the debt repayment after annexation, since we would be using those capital facilities as citizens of Kirkland.
As Johanna points out, the opponents of annexation seem to not know the difference between “debt” (something you owe) and “projected deficits” (the difference between anticipated future revenues and what some people think they would like to spend). These projected deficits that Style and Henkens incorrectly call “debt” can be dealt with in a number of ways, including simply not spending that much, privatization of services, increased income through increased economic activity and development, or, perhaps, tax increases, most of which at this point would have to be voter approved (and if we don’t, then, well, we spend less). These projected operating deficits won’t become “debt”, because the city doesn’t borrow money to pay operating expenses — it only borrows money for capital improvements. It’s up to the citizens of Kirkland to come up with a solution to these projected budget deficits by working together.
But the point here is that the projected deficit is not “debt” under any normal definition of the word, and I simply fail to understand why opponents of annexation persist in using the word “debt” in this context unless they really don’t comprehend the difference or are intentionally trying to mislead voters.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
3
I’ve used the same chart many times. The question is: why are we paying 3.8 more in taxes than Hunts Point? Mr. Nixon uses the tax rate chart to support government’s tax and spend policies. I use the tax rate chart showing our taxes are too high.
The key points of Kirkland’s budgeting practice whether you call it debt, deficit, or as the Council would prefer, a gap. Debt is normally associated with the operating budget. Projected deficits include capital expenditures and are adjusted up to spend more money or down to cover an operating expense deficit.
The debt we took on was more than the $2.3 million grant we received to improve the Juanita beach area. Buying Juanita beach from the County for a dollar was fiscally unsound and irresponsible. It’s a regional park being paid for by Kirkland citizens, not by all those who use it.
To take on more debt with annexation creates a greater debt to the budgets we need to keep and improve our quality of life. You want to improve yours and Johanna’s quality of life at the expense of others. That’s not good for my budget or the other people who will have to sacrifice in order to pay for it.
Kirkland’s revenues have increased an average of 11% over the past 20 years. The city rate of inflation has risen more than 3 times faster than the cost-of-living adjustments seniors need to cope with the fee and tax increases. Each year Kirkland adopts a budget that they say is balanced and is enough to run the city. Yet, each year they bust the budget. They don’t stay on budget. They spent the $12 million surplus instead of lowering taxes. The city has never, never, forecasted a balanced budget in the 22 years I’ve lived here.
Their forecast is a ploy in an attempt to justify budget increases, budget increases mostly asked for by staff, not by citizens. In all the city surveys for the past 20 years, citizens are satisfied with city services. Why then do we need such a high rate of tax increases?
Mr. Nixon and Johanna can play with words all they want. Their idea of what it takes to balance the budget is not fiscally sound. We need sustainable budgets.
Kirkland should live within it means just like we have to. Adopting what Mr. Nixon proposes as a fiscal policy means more of the same irresponsible decision-making that got us into this mess. He and Johanna may want more of the same. I do not.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
13
Mr. Style,
You always draw bizarre parallels. Above you want to show Kirkland in a bad light vis-a-vis Hunts Point. Yet one has parks, schools, sidewalks, a fire department and so on, and the other doesn’t. Do you really think that the social services that Hunts Point provides its citizens would be appropriate for the citizens of Kirkland?
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Hunts Point has a lower city tax rate than Kirkland because they have much higher property valies and provide a much lower level of services (it doesn’t take much for a town of fewer than 500 people, all of whom are quite wealthy and can take care of themselves). A more useful measure than the tax rate might be the average property tax revenue per household. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I would venture to guess that the average assessed value per home in Hunts Point is several times that of Kirkland, and that even at the lower tax rate, the average family in Hunts Point pays more in property taxes per household than the average Kirkland family. You need to compare Kirkland to its peer cities, not a wealthy enclave — and we have a lower tax rate than Sammamish, Redmond, Bothell, Kenmore, Shoreline, and Lake Forest Park, and only slighly higher than Issaquah and Woodinville (Bellevue is an outlier because the huge value of commercial properties drives the rate down).
If the people of Kirkland don’t like the way the city is being managed by the current city council, then they have the opportunity, this year, to change that significantly. And knowing that the residents of the PAA are generally more conservative than the current population of Kirkland, I predict that movement in a more fiscally conservative direction will only continue after annexation. In fact, Bob, you should really be supporting annexation if you want a more conservative electorate that will bring in a city council more to your liking!
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
4
what other people are saying:
cdog426 says:
February 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I must say, I would like to see this city that has a population of around 34,000 and have only 10 police officers and run on a budget of $12,000,000 a year. Medina has 7 police officers with a population of 3000. While I sense that you have many concerns about the financial picture about the community (most people do), your perspective is somewhat flawed when it comes to the larger picture and who benefits from annexation.
Take for example the fire department. King County Fire District 41 (AKA the PAA Fire Department) pays the city of Kirkland for fire protection. There is a huge savings in having one combined fire department since you don’t have to pay for separate fire chiefs and office people. Also you have more people paying for the equipment required to run a fire department. I looked at some rough prices online and a ladder truck costs around $600,000 (give or take, still a lot of money). Right now the PAA and the City of Kirkland combined pay for a ladder truck that benefits the whole area. If annexation were not to happen I suspect a push to a Bothell annexation might happen. The City of Kirkland stands to lose several million dollars in support from a fire district that would disappear when Bothell annexes. So who pays for that ladder truck now? I’m sure Kirkland would still need one since there are a lot of taller buildings in Kirkland.
To be honest I’m somewhat intrigued about the idea of a separate incorporated city. I know in recent posts it was stated that other neighborhoods in the City haven’t received the full benefit of annexation to the City of Kirkland. To be honest someone should advocate de-annexing the 98034 zip code and let that area merge with the PAA to form a new city (we have a 98034 zip code as well). It would have a nice waterfront area, a potential for good commercial development, and surrounded by nice middle class neighborhoods. So with that said………..FREE TOTEM LAKE!
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
6
I think that you missed the reason for that post. I support annexation. I was trying to point out an example how the economies of scale actually saved money for the City of Kirkland and PAA in the instance of the fire department. My last paragraph was a lame attempt at sarcasm when people point that a better option would be to incorporate on our own. This is a silly proposition without a healthy tax base potential that may exist in Totem Lake. Look at cities like Sammamish that recently incorporated. They charge nearly twice the amount in taxes compared to Kirkland.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
6