King County Budget: Executive Sims plans for $7.7 million cut in annexation incentives
According to an article by Kevin Ervin of The Seattle Times, King County Executive Ron Sims has called for a cut in funds set aside as incentives to cities to annex urban unincorporated areas. Instead, the money will be used to keep 39 parks open.
King County had put aside $10 million to be distributed to municipalities as an incentive for annexation. Now $7.7 million of that money is to be reallocated.
As a part of Kirkland’s annexation study, the City planned on receiving $2.5 million from King County to to help offset the high cost of annexation. The Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) of Kingsgate, Juanita and Finn Hill have since been placed in limbo due to Kirkland’s own budget crisis. The loss of King County funding for annexation is yet another financial blow to annexation proponents who are looking toward Bothell as their new suitor.
The Times article is focused on the enormous budget deficit facing King County and how the County is struggling to cut expenses — including up to 400 county jobs. The last paragraph of the story references the reallocation of annexation incentive funds.
Posted by Rob Butcher on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 10:40 am
Filed under Headlines · Tagged with Annexation, Budget, Features, King County, Seattle Times
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Rob,
I know I haven’t told you lately how much I love you. That must be the reason for your latest news flash which was obviously meant to get what little blood pressure I have left to rise! It is not working!
Being an ex-boxer you always lead with the jab. As you do watch out for the upper cut coming your way!
Honestly, from what I saw, heard and read, Kirkland was not so sure that King County would ante up anything. I do remember some talk about interim services or some other form of payment besides money. As much as you and others that are anti-annexation would like to think that this news is the death knell are a little premature. The County Council will have the last say on the money. All my research indicates that the County Council is firmly in favor of turning all PAA’s over the apppropriate Cities. Of course in Kirkland’s case we would gain a million a year from the Casino if the City Council comes to their senses.
It aint over yet, Rob!
Al
I know that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rob has a history of being against annexation and his perspective is well known. Al is informed on annexation too but they don’t agree at all on it.
I wish the council would just end this annexation drama once and for all. It has been proven over and over that we just can’t afford it. We couldn’t afford it last year despite everything Bob Sternoff said to the contrary. Annexing Juanita is his baby so he’ll protect it at all costs along with Joan McBride. That was last year. This year our budget gap is double and the economy is even worse. Only people with something to gain from annexation can think about expanding while we are cutting our own services just to stay afloat.
Jessica Greenway is very much against annexation. Mary Alice Burleigh has changed her view and wants Bothell to annex now.
Taking on the additional burdens of annexation for Kirkland makes no sense at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Downtown Dave,
I am not sure you got this one right either. I am not sure that Sternoff or anyone has Juanita (already part of Kirkland)as their baby. You as Rob do not believe that the City’s days are numbered. We have an inherently bad tax system and our ability to get out of it with current and proposed population is not feasable over the long run. Watch the upcomming budget discussions and my bet is that you see solutions for the short term. The council will characterize the methods they use (rainy day fund, business tax increases and a levy lid lift) as solutions. What happens if little or no development occurs and sales tax results continue at current levels? Unfortunately the cost of providing services with our current city size will not get enough economies to afford the employees we have now. Look at all the new Cities in our area and ask yourself why they contract for police and fire and other services? Could it be that at least they will know what their costs are going to be? At some point a Council in this City will realize that they need more land mass and hence more property owners to be financially viable for the long run. Until then enjoy your tax increases and reduction in services. The annexation if done right helps for all these reasons. And no I don’t and have never owned anything in the annexation area. I don’t even have any friends there. Heck besides Rob I don’t think I have any friends here either!
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al,
Thanks for the kind sentiments. I do try to keep to reporting the facts, thanks for recognizing that. Best of luck with your blood pressure.
Dave,
Yes, I am outspoken on the issue of annexation as I believe it is financially unsound. As for the positions of City Councilmembers, I am not sure you are correct on your assessments. They will be reviewing the subject in the new year so we shall see where they stand.
Thank you both for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve been following this issue for quite some time since I’m a “Kirkland Resident” (Finn Hill , zip code 98034) . While I understand the concern of the budget deficit and the seeming lack of progress in the decision making ability of the Kirkland City Council it would be short sighted for City Kirkland to give up on annexation. The main reason is that the City is going to be faced with the decision to raise taxes and/or cut services. Cutting services is going to be tough for a City that staffs proportionately less than other area cities and has similar citizen demands. The other option is to raise taxes and since the commercial growth in this city is somewhat stagnant that burden will fall on the residents. I’m a long term “Kirkland” resident and I’m quite familiar that the budget problems in the City is similar to talk that happened in 2001-2002, 1999, 1996, and several times in years before that. It’s prudent to spread that “residential” tax burden among more people, especially ones that aren’t falling out of the sky but already use and abuse the city services and infrastructure.
BTW in an earlier post in another thread a comment was made something to the affect that the City of Kirkland is a Lexus and the PAA is a Yugo. I think a more accurate comparison is that the City of Kirkland is a Lexus and the PAA is a Toyota. Same on the inside, parts are interchangeable, and built in the same factory. One has extra accessories and the other doesn’t! Just my two cents!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al Czervik, Sorry if I wasn’t precise enough for you when I said Juanita. I should have said North Juanita. Remember that most of us aren’t a part of the government so cut us some slack if we make a misstatement or two.
You said, “Look at all the new Cities in our area and ask yourself why they contract for police and fire and other services? Could it be that at least they will know what their costs are going to be?” What cities are you talking about? I don’t think you are suggesting that Kirkland contract out our police and fire to save money. If we did would how much would it save? I want to hear more about these “new cities”. What’s your definition of new? Your biggest case is you think Kirkland is doomed in the long term and we only budget for the short term. What’s your definition of long term?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dave,
I’ll cut you as much slack as you need!
Those of us who have lived here a long time take our neighborhood designations seriously. North Juanita is correct but I don’t believe near and dear on its own to any councilmember. I have not heard any of them including Sternoff utter those words.
New Cities: New Castle, Sammamish, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park to name a few.
I am not suggesting that Kirkland contract out today only that new Cities are doing this to make budgeting for tax purposes more predictable and hence more sustainable.
Long term in my opinion is a time 10 or more years out so that no matter what Kirkland is sustainable as a city. In other words in a way that doesn’t tax everybody out of here and that the cost and level of our City services are not inferior to other Cities around us. Actuarial tables are not in my favor for seeing another ten years so maybe I shouldn’t care. But I do for those I leave behind. Including Rob and Downtown Dave!
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al,
I know a tough guy like you can beat those actuarial tables. I’m rooting for you, pal. Busy bodies like you and me need to watch out for each other. We keep one another on our toes. Best of luck on the links.
Cdog,
I prefer your Lexus/Toyota analogy too.
Thanks for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rob,
Way off topic on the links comment. Arthritis made my golf game too dangerous for the people I used to play with. When I yelled fore they knew it was my 4 iron heading their direction! That’s why I have all this time to lurk here.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0