Comments on: Kirkland City Council Passes Annexation

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:54:56 +0000

Hi Peter,
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. The 6-1 vote was for a resolution only. It alone was not sufficient to secure annexation. In fact, if only the resolution had passed and the ordinance had not, annexation would still be in question and still up to the next council. The ordinance which set the effective date of annexation to June 1, 2011 was passed by the city council by a vote of 4-3.
You will note that two councilmembers (Asher and Hodgson) voted YES for the resolution, but voted NO for the ordinance. By voting in this manner, they expressed their approval of annexation in a non-binding way. In essence, voting for the resolution said they believe annexation should take place someday. That someday could be in 2020, 2030 or 2050!
When pressed to vote on an effective date for annexation in 2011, they both voted NO. I will not attempt to explain why they each voted in this manner, however, their votes express 1. approval of the concept of annexation at sometime in the future; and 2. rejection of annexation in 2011.
It is my understanding that since the ordinance passed, the county can prepare to hand over the PAA to Kirkland, and the city can begin to ramp up for the additional employees they will need to serve the additional +/- 33,000 people.
Thank you for your comment.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:54:00 +0000

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:24:52 +0000

The vote was 6-1 in favor of Annexation. This report got it wrong. The 4-3 vote was on fixing a date of July 1st 2011 for annexation to commence.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:24:00 +0000

The vote was 6-1 in favor of Annexation. This report got it wrong. The 4-3 vote was on fixing a date of July 1st 2011 for annexation to commence.

By: Johanna Palmer

Johanna Palmer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:58:26 +0000

All three of the newly elected council members support the vote on annexation and asked the current coucil to pass Ordinance 4229. Council member-elect Sweet spoke at the meeting and represented the other two who were present. So, the new council would probably have voted 5-2 in favor of annexation.
Thank you to all who supported this tremendous effort.

By: Johanna Palmer

Johanna Palmer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:58:00 +0000

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:42:25 +0000

Hi Jim, The Council voted 6-1 to approve Resolution 4791 which was not binding on the new council coming into power next month. The new council could have reversed course on annexation if an ordinance was not passed last night. The subsequent 4 to 3 vote passed Ordinance 4229 which is binding and irrevocable as I understand it. From the City's press release on annexation:

In a 6 to 1 vote, the Council approved Resolution 4791 which expressed its intent to accept the annexation. In a 4 to 3 vote, the Council approved Ordinance 4229 which formally accepts the annexation area to the City of Kirkland, makes the annexation area subject to zoning regulations adopted via Ordinance 4196 and sets the effective date of annexation as June 1, 2011.

Thank you for your comments.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:42:00 +0000

In a 6 to 1 vote, the Council approved Resolution 4791 which expressed its intent to accept the annexation. In a 4 to 3 vote, the Council approved Ordinance 4229 which formally accepts the annexation area to the City of Kirkland, makes the annexation area subject to zoning regulations adopted via Ordinance 4196 and sets the effective date of annexation as June 1, 2011.

Thank you for your comments.

By: Jim Hitter

Jim Hitter — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:09 +0000

Interestingly, the Seattle Times has the vote being 6 to 1 with Ms. Greenway being the 1 NO vote.

By: Jim Hitter

Jim Hitter — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:00 +0000

Interestingly, the Seattle Times has the vote being 6 to 1 with Ms. Greenway being the 1 NO vote.

By: Pete Peterson

Pete Peterson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:26:02 +0000

I do not feel this was the appropriate time to vote for the annexation. Since the new City Council has to live with this, I believe the new council should have made the decision on what to do. Since the Mayor was leaving it is no problem of his and I believe his statement was uncalled for.
I will accept the vote and I will participate where it will help us in the PAA.

By: Pete Peterson

Pete Peterson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:26:00 +0000

By: Downtowner

Downtowner — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:56:18 +0000

Outgoing Mayor Jim Lauinger, who supported annexation, expressed confidence in their decision to annex, while acknowledging the budget difficulties facing Kirkland ahead, ”The new council will roll up its sleeves and you’re going to be dominated by annexation and budget issues.”

Thanks for the lovely going-away present. Right decision, wrong time.

What was Hodgson’s explanatioan for flipping from the “Yes” to “No”?

By: Downtowner

Downtowner — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:56:00 +0000

Outgoing Mayor Jim Lauinger, who supported annexation, expressed confidence in their decision to annex, while acknowledging the budget difficulties facing Kirkland ahead, ”The new council will roll up its sleeves and you’re going to be dominated by annexation and budget issues.”

Thanks for the lovely going-away present. Right decision, wrong time.

What was Hodgson’s explanatioan for flipping from the “Yes” to “No”?