King County Elections Certified Election Results: Annexation Rejected by PAA
This morning the King County Canvassing Board certified final election results. Kirkland’s proposal to annex the Finn Hill, North Juanita and Kingsgate neighborhoods, which appeared on the November 3, 2009 ballot as Proposition A, is among the results certified. The following results were posted on the King County Elections website athttp://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200911/Respage61.aspx:
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: *10813/19231 (56.23%)
Proposition A Proposed Annexation, Assumption Of Indebtedness, And Adoption Of Zoning Regulations
YES 6291 59.94%
NO 4205 40.06%
The Canvassing Board must submit a “statement of canvass” to the King County Council. The King County Council will then file a certified copy of its minutes, including a finding about the annexation election outcome, and a certified abstract of the vote with the Kirkland City Clerk. Regular meetings of the full King County Council are held Mondays at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 10th floor of the King County Courthouse, at 516 Third Avenue between James and Jefferson in Seattle. To view its meeting calendar, go to http://kingcounty.legistar.com/custom/king/calendar.htm. It is anticipated that the next meeting of the King County Council will be on December 7, 2009. To learn more about the Canvassing Board, go to www.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/200911/canvassboard.aspx.
Because the City asked voters in the potential annexation area to assume the City’s outstanding debt, there are two thresholds that must be met to approve the ballot measure: 60% of PAA voters must vote yes and at least 40% of PAA voters who voted in the 2008 Presidential election must vote on the measure (called “validation”).
Kirkland City Council Update
The Kirkland City Council is continuing its discussions on updates to the 2009-2010 Budget, including options for annexation should the 60% threshold not be met. The City Council will hold a Study Session on December 1 at 6:00 p.m., Kirkland City Hall, Peter Kirk Room, to continue its budget deliberations. The discussion may carry over into the Regular Meeting that begins at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting agenda and associated staff reports will be posted online after Wednesday, November 25, 2009. Kirkland city residents can view the Council meeting live on KGOV – Comcast Channel 21 and Verizon Channel 31. To view the agenda and watch the meeting live or on-demand, go tohttp://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/council/Watch_Council_Meetings.htm.
Print This Article
Posted by Rob Butcher on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 11:17 am
Filed under Announcements, Elections, Headlines · Tagged with Annexation, PAA
Print This Article
You might also like
|
|
|
|
|
That’s a bit of an inflammatory headline and graphic, Rob. Characterizing this as “REJECTED” sounds awfully final, but it’s far from over. The fact is, the PAA overwhelmingly supports becoming a part of Kirkland, with 59.94% support. That’s a landslide! The vote fell slightly short (just 7 votes) of approving the assumption of the city’s existing bonded indebtedness, but state law (RCW 35A.14.085) allows the council to approve the annexation moving forward without the assumption of indebtedness. The question now goes back to the city council, which can approve a resolution by simple majority vote accepting the annexation without debt assumption — which is exactly what they did with both the Rose Hill and Juanita annexations.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
16
Hi Toby,
I was sure someone would complain about the use of the term “rejected” so please let me explain my reasoning, and tell me if you still disagree. The vote was for annexation including assumption of Kirkland’s debt. Yes, the vote was extremely close, however, it would be pure spin to not acknowledge the fact that the ballot measure was indeed, “rejected” by the voters. I make this point because we all know that if the vote had come out 7 votes in favor of annexation, it would be full speed ahead, no looking back. And anyone who might have said the slightest comment to the contrary would be chastised by someone with terms such as “let’s move forward” , “you can’t undo the election” and “the people have spoken.”
The point I’m trying to make is this: each side spins. They choose carefully what to say (and what not to say) about the outcome. If the outcome had been different, my guess is that you would be trumpeting (as you should) the victory. My guess is that strong words such as “approved” would be seen as perfectly acceptable.
Most reasonable folks would agree that the services in the PAA will continue to deteriorate under King County. Many would prefer take their chances as a part of Kirkland. That vote, without Krikland’s debt, would likely pass the 50% threshold required by law. However, that was not on the ballot.
I know that my editorial choices may sometimes rub some people the wrong way. That is certainly not my desire. I do attempt to make Kirkland Views an open forum for all to participate in discussion of the issues facing Greater Kirkland and sometimes I am purposely provocative in my choice of words. My goal is to provoke thought and discussion among those who would not ordinarily hear or read an opposing perspective. It is a challenging goal.
I appreciate your comment and I look forward to reading your considered response.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
I have to agree with Toby on this one; the headline makes it appear that it ain’t going to happen, when in fact it sort of half lost. I wonder what the result would have been if we had been able to vote on the three items separately?
Also: Is this a news story or an editorial? I thought that it was a news story and as such wouldn’t have an editorial bent (just the facts and nothing but the facts.)
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
13
Hi Steve,
I really have little disagreement with Toby and perhaps I have not explained myself well. Annexation was put before the voters of the PAA and it did not pass. Unless the vote count is contested, the election is finish and the annexation ballot measure was rejected by the voters. UNLESS the Kirkland City Council decides to act further, annexation is over. Supporters of annexation will petition the Council to approve annexation without the PAA assumption of Kirkland’s debt. The Council may vote to approve annexation or they may not. Either way, the results of the ballot measure stand. It may not matter, but it is true. This is not the end of hope for pro-annexation supporters, however, annexation is now out of the hands of the PAA and the decision to annex or not is squarely in the hands of the Council.
As for your editorial question, this article text came directly from a City press release. The title of the article and the graphic used were subject to my editorial judgement. I do write editorials from time to time and they are labled as such.
Thank you for your comments.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
I don’t disagree with your argument, Rob. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the headline is incomplete. Compare it, for example, to the headline of Nicole Tsong’s article on the Seattle Times web site this afternoon: “Kirkland annexation barely fails; council could pass it” (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010344985_kirklandannex24m.html). That conveys much better the fact that the process is not over.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
14
Point well taken, Toby.
Thank you.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Yes the Council did approve Rose Hill and Juanita annexation without indebtedness. They still don’t have what the city promised.and have added much more debt to the budget than bonded indebtedness. Services cost money. If the Council approves annexation, it will be more of the same, much more.
The city must adopt a balanced budget. It will be much more difficult to do with annexation, about $2.2 million added to our existing $10 million “structural” budget problem and that’s only for the first year of a two year budget. What ever budget they adopt, it will not stay balanced for long, abouit a month, maybe shorter.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
3
Does this mean that everything north of 116th goes back to the PAA so they can create their own city with their own commercial district? A nice straight line from Spuds in Juanita to Jack in the Box on Auto Row.
And, if so, what shall it be called?
Suggestions:
Johnstown (motto: Enjoy the Kool Aid)
Gildayville (Come for the Day, stay for the Sarcasm)
Sun Vegas (Dealer must hit soft readers)
I’m just sayin….
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
This is more of a general comment, but IF (assuming if…) people in the PAAs REALLY cared about annexation, how come ONLY 56.23% of registered voters participated? Who knows what the percentage would be if one also counted “possible” voters” (=everyone old enough to vote but obviously not interested enough to register)?
One can also read these results that some 40% of “registered” voters really could not care less about the annexation issue.
What I am trying to say (and I am aware that I might be treading on thin ice) is that if you really care for an issue in a democracy, participation in the 50% range is really not enough. You have to be engaged and bring everyone and their cousins to the polls. Where I am coming from (Sweden), elections normally pull out some 80%-90% of “eligible” voters (=everyone old enough have the right to vote – no need to register).
And, see this more as a general comment (not directly related to the PAA issue), but “we” (residents) need to get more involved in our community/ies and get the voters out on large and important issues. People should really “feel” they have a right and maybe even a “duty” to make their voices heard. It is far too easy to lose that right if not exercising it.
Note: not yet a citizen, I could not vote in this election, but I do try to help/impact my community in other ways (wife voted however).
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I agree with you, Per-Ola. It really is disappointing that we don’t have better turnout for elections. But at least turnout in the PAA at 56% was better than King County countywide (53%), which was better than the statewide turnout (50%).
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I disagree that you have to be engaged and bring everyone and their cousins to the polls; If people don’t care, I would rather that they don’t vote (unless I can convince them to vote the way I want them to.) High voter turnout just for the sake of high voter turnout is – in my opinion – not a desireable goal; it doesn’t necessarily indicate an electorate that is educated on the issues and has a vested interest in the outcome.
Highly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Steve,
I might agree with you here. What I meant is not “just” going to the polls, but to get people genuinely interested in issues that DO concern them/their lives and fight (vote) for them.
I have a hard time understanding why so many elect not to vote (if you don’t agree with any of the choices, then submit a “blank ballot”), and then spend so much time later on complaining about the ones who in effect were elected into office.
It really would not take more time than avoiding watching one episode of “Dancing with the Stars” or any other prime-time program, to at least get a basic understanding of the issues in an election.
But, in a democracy, you also have the tight “not to vote”, it just really don’t make it any easier if many are taking that route.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hmmmm . . . In regards to your comment (in response to Toby’s initial comments) . . .”The point I’m trying to make is this: each side spins. They choose carefully what to say (and what not to say) about the outcome.” . . . sounds like a ‘Spin” to focus on the negative perspective. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been “Final decision on Annexation still to be Determined – UNDECIDED”. But then that doesn’t garner nearly as much attention as the headline you chose.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
8
Hi Lynda,
I understand your perspective and I appreciate you making your point. Frankly, the analysis of the wording of this headline, the associated graphic and the press release is burning 100X more cycles than I originally put into it. I did not intend to make such a big deal by not mentioning that the Council could again take up annexation. Annexation is an emotional subject for many. That is why this topic has so many commenting. However, I assure you the headline of this article was not meant to “spin” anything. In fact, I stand by the headline as factual and germane to the body of the article. The article did not delve into “what if?” scenarios. It addressed the action of the County Canvasing Board and the election results. If there is any “spin” taking place, I suggest you look at some of the comments here by others. Some of the “spin” is pretty heavy. I will also go as far as to say that if I did post a headline more in line with what you or Toby suggest, I could very easily be accused of “spin” by your opposition.
Many of the issues that are before the Council now were discussed in a previous article, What’s Next for the Annexation of Kingsgate, Finn Hill and North Juanita?. Some of the issues mentioned in your suggested headline were already coved in that article.
While we may not see eye to eye on this subject, I respect your opinion and I thank you for sharing it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I have given my feelings many times on a NO for annexation. Now I am saying if it is rejected it is revjected. If the City Council can now decide to have the annexation WHY did we even vote. It is very evident the city cannot afford to annex the PAA because they cannot afford togive services to its own people living in Kirkland now. I have talked to people from Kirkland and their comment has been, how can you get services when they are cutting some of our services.
Again I say the vote tell how it is so lets forget the annexation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Annexation wasn’t exactly rejected; a majority of the voters said that they wanted to be annexed but the percentages wer not high enough to accept Kirkland’s debt. It’s my understanding that the city of Kirkland had legally agreed to annex the PAA if there was a 60% vote in favor of the total package (annexation, acceptance of indebtedness, acceptance of land use regulations) the only thing being left was for the city council to decide was the actual annexation date. Since the vote was greater than 50% but less than the 60% required to accept the debt, Kirkland still has the option to annex the PAA but is not obligated to. It’s not up to the PAA anymore, it’s totally in the hands of the Kirkland citizens and city council.
FWIW: We have lived in the PAA for 35 years (13 years on Finn Hill and 22 years in Kingsgate) and been opposed to this annexation from the beginning. Even though we have had a Kirkland mailing address for all this time, we have never identified with the city and have always considered it to an advantage that we were not within the city limits. I kind of figure that nobody in the PAA has a right to complain; they knew it was unincorporated but moved here anyway.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The simple fact is … Annexation failed at the polls. It was rejected by a very small margin, but it was rejected. Lots of reasons why, but it failed nontheless. Spin is spin and Toby Nixon is a master at it. For those of us who voted NO.. we now have to wait and see what the new council will do with this very hot issue. Time will tell.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
4
This article has experienced an extremely heavy traffic load and the server has not been able to keep the page up. The server load on this article has been bringing down the server and not allowing this page to load properly. I apologize for the inconvenience and I am working to alleviate this problem.
Thank you for your patience.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0