The first decision to make is whether or not to request a recount. State law does not mandate automatic recounts on local ballot measures, no matter how close the vote, so a recount is only conducted if requested by a group of voters willing to pay for the full cost of the recount – estimated at $7,000 for a machine recount for all the ballots in PAA precincts, $23,000 for a hand recount. In a machine recount, all the ballots from the annexation area would be run through the counting machine again, but with a special setting turned on so that ballots on which the machine doesn’t recognize either a Yes or No vote for annexation would be separated out for hand-checking. It’s possible that some voters might have used the wrong color pen, or marked their vote with an “X”, slash, checkmark, or something else other than filing in the entire bubble – all of which would be counted as votes in the recount even though they weren’t in the original count. Of course, it’s possible that these votes could be “No” votes and make things worse, but they could be “Yes” votes, too. We’d have to put down a deposit of about $1,600 by November 27 in order to start the machine recount. If the recount changed the result (pushed the count back above 60%), we wouldn’t have to pay anything, and the deposit would be refunded – but if the result didn’t change, the rest of the full cost of the recount would be due.

 If we don’t do a recount, or if the result doesn’t change, the next action would be to ask the city council to accept the annexation anyway. State law (RCW 35A.14.085) says that even if a combined vote on annexation and debt assumption fails to get the required 60% of the vote, so long as the result is 50% or more, the city council can still vote to accept the annexation without the debt assumption (it’s the debt assumption component that causes the 60% requirement). Previous Kirkland city councils have done exactly that – when annexation areas have voted positively on annexation but not accepted debt assumption, the council has gone ahead with annexation anyway. Annexation was supported by nearly 60% of the voters in the PAA, and the impact of the PAA not assuming a portion of the city’s bonded debt is small (the property tax for debt repayment for existing city property owners would have decreased from 16 cents to 11 cents per thousand dollars valuation; that 5 cents is only about 0.6% of the total property tax rate in the city). So the council may once again make a similar decision – but there’s no guarantee, as there would be if the vote were above 60%.

 If you think Citizens for One Kirkland should request a recount and are willing to pledge a contribution toward the $7,000 cost, please email onekirkland@yahoo.com and let us know. No need to send money now – but we need to know if there’s a willingness to fund the recount should that decision be made next week.

The 2005 estimate of police staff needed to serve the city after annexation was never a “promise” to provide 77 new police officers to serve the annexation area alone. That initial estimate was unfortunately inflated; the department proposed having as many patrol districts in the PAA as there currently are in the entire city, essentially doubling the size of the department. We all knew that wasn’t necessary, and they were sent back to come up with a realistic estimate that would provide coverage in the annexation area similar to what is received within existing city boundaries. The current plan does exactly that.

The Con committee’s assertion that “without sheriffs, the King County parks and schools become ‘unprotected islands’” is just nonsense. The Kirkland Police patrol parks and schools within the city regardless of who owns or maintains them. Why are such ridiculous and desperate scare tactics employed by the opponents?

The claim that “promised services are over 2 years away” while taxes and debt start immediately is just a lie as well. The annexation area will not pay city taxes or be responsible for our proportionate share of city obligations until annexation becomes effective in 2011 – on the same day that our city services, including improved police coverage, come on line. At no time will we be responsible for city taxes or debt without having the services and representation that go with them.

My primary reason for supporting annexation is improved police protection. Currently, the county allocates just 3/4ths of an officer to patrol the entire annexation area. The city will establish three patrol districts in the area – that’s three officers patrolling the annexation area around the clock, instead of just 3/4ths of a county officer. And we get that improved service with the taxes for an average home staying about the same!

The county keeps telling us that their service levels are going to decrease even further. I want the improved protection for my home and family that annexation will bring, and look forward to being served by the Kirkland Police Department.

Toby Nixon

The police services alone are enough to get my vote. King County can call Kirkland PD for assistance (paid for by Kirkland taxpayers), but often do not. I have personal examples. It took two calls to 911 and 45 minutes for an sheriff to respond to Kamiakin Junior High when a non-student came on campus and threatened a student with a knife. Example number two: The lumber (valued at over $1500.00) for my son’s Eagle project was stolen from a church parking lot. The Sheriff took the report by phone, no investigation.

At every informational meeting I attended on annexation (there were many), a King County representative has said the County will cut our services in the future. Well, the county is living up to its word, more cuts are being proposed. I am sure taxes and fees will increase too.

The property tax rate for Kirkland is 14% lower than King County ($7.89 for Kirkland, $9.26 for King County per $1000 of assessed value). Yes, Kirkland has a utility tax. For many people the total taxes paid will be the same or less than they are paying now, even with the proposed increase.

Will Kirkland raise our taxes in the future? Maybe, but so will King County. We would have a greater voice in the decision if we are part of Kirkland. Our local government would be Kirkland, and we would still have our King County representatives for regional issues.

While it is true we cannot vote for Kirkland City Council members or tax issues today, we can change that for the future. We will be able to have representation on city boards and commissions also. City Council meetings are more accessible to the public, held in Kirkland in the evening. The King County Council meets in Downtown Seattle during the work day.

The City of Kirkland is putting annexation on the ballot and is required to inform the voters on the issue. The “For” and “Against” statements in the Voter’s guide have the same word limits. If the information about annexation appears to be positive, it’s because the facts speak for themselves. Annexation will be a benefit to the citizens of the PAA and current Kirkland residents. Kirkland became the city it is now through previous annexations.

The annexation of this area is a big job, no doubt. When we work together, we can build a better future for all of the Kirkland community. We have always been one Kirkland, it’s time we became one city.

The annexation has been endorsed by the Kirkland Professional Fire Fighters and the Municipal League

Johanna Palmer

September 9, 2009

Dear Editor,

Kirkland Reporter

I am a strong advocate for annexation to Kirkland, having lived on Finn Hill for 22 years and having watched as development occurs in the County with little attention to the traffic, access and mobility needs of the community and neighborhood. The County’s benign neglect of arterials, pedestrian connections and overall operation, particularly near new development, has increased traffic congestion. For example, the newest drive-in Starbucks on 100^th Avenue NE results in queues that back up into a busy intersection.

With annexation to Kirkland, I look forward to and expect a higher level of community input and involvement for land use issues and community/neighborhood planning. We have established neighborhoods in the Annexation area, but the planning for parks, land use, transportation improvements and overall vision has been out-of-date for 15+ years, as King County has turned its attention to other areas. Please join me in supporting annexation to Kirkland for Finn Hill, Juanita and Kingsgate areas to bring a local level of control to land use issues and community planning efforts. I urge citizens in these areas to get informed about annexation and the benefits. Both the City of Kirkland and the One Kirkland organization offer additional details.

Katherine Casseday, PE

Finn Hill

9726 NE 138^th Place

Kirkland, WA 980934-1808

425-823-3881

The following are letters from the community showing support for annexation. These have been reposted with permission of the author.

I’m astounded that the anti-annexation group continues to question what will happen to property taxes in the PAA after annexation. There is no question — property taxes will go down. Kirkland’s property tax levy is $1.03 per thousand, and the debt service on existing bonds is $0.11 per thousand, a total of $1.14 per thousand. Parcels in the PAA will no longer pay the county road tax of $1.59 per thousand, or the Fire District 41 levy of $0.90 per thousand (or, for homes east of 124th Ave NE, the Woodinville Fire levy or benefit charge, which is even higher). The rest of our property taxes stay the same, but it is undeniable that property taxes WILL go down. Katherine’s idea that this is just an “average” is mistaken — EVERY parcel will see this decrease. And so long as the legislature leaves I-747 in place, total property tax collected by the city can’t increase by more than 1% per year without voter approval.
 
Yes, we will pay a utility tax, which for the average family will add up to almost as much as the savings in property tax. But it’s also possible, if we stay unincorporated, that King County will succeed in their efforts in the legislature to be allowed to charge a county utility tax in areas inside the urban growth boundary, including our PAA. The legislature is serious about getting areas like ours annexed into cities, and will continue to take measures to encourage such annexations; allowing the county to charge us a utility tax is a distinct possibility.
 
Bob questions my motives for supporting annexation. I’ll decline to respond in-kind to his ad hominem attacks, but will gladly say that my primary motivation for supporting annexation is, and always has been, to obtain better police coverage than we’re getting now from King County. The King County Sheriff is quite clear that they assign just 3/4ths of an FTE — less than one full-time officer — to patrolling the PAA. In the event of serious emergencies, we do indeed get help from adjoining jurisdictions. But we rarely see a patrol car just checking on the security of our neighborhoods. Response to car prowls, loud parties, trespassing, and other non-violent crimes is non-existent or greatly delayed. If you do have a burglary, they’ll take a report so you can file for your insurance, but that’s about it — don’t expect the crime to actually be investigated. The initial proposals from the Kirkland Police for coverage in the PAA were greatly exaggerated — they proposed having as many patrol districts in the PAA as there currently are in the entire city, essentially doubling the size of the department. Even those of us in the PAA said that was too much, and asked the department to rework the plan so that we would have coverage similar to what the existing city has now — roughly one patrol officer for each 10,000 in population. And that’s the plan now. Compared to the level of service we currently have from the county — 3/4ths of an officer for 33,000 people – having three officers for 33,000 people is a huge improvement.
 
State law requires that fire and EMS response be at least as good as it was before annexation. For the Con committee to continue saying that response times would increase is to say that the City of Kirkland would knowingly and willfully violate state law. It just won’t happen. The Con committee wants you to think people will die if annexation occurs; that is simply false.
 
Some people in the PAA looked forward to annexation as a way to shut down the Casino Caribbean. It’s true that the city council has passed a non-binding resolution saying they plan to allow the casino to remain open. As for a second casino, my understanding is that King of Clubs Casino allowed their temporary card room license to expire today — and so they would not be eligible for grandfathering under SB5321. The key point, as I wrote in my original posting, is that if we remain unincorporated, then there’s NO LIMIT to the number of casinos that can open in the PAA. Any resident who wants to see the number of casinos capped should support annexation.
 
The idea that the PAA could form its own town or city has been fully explored and abandoned for good reasons. Our area is nearly fully built out as a residential area. Unless there’s a plan to tear down entire neighborhoods and replace them with commercial areas, the PAA does not and cannot generate enough revenue to support itself as an independent municipality. We do generate enough revenue to enable an existing city to annex and provide a reasonable level of services to us through economies of scale. That’s exactly what’s proposed now.
 
The idea that we could be annexed into Kenmore, Bothell, or Woodinville is a chimera. Both Woodinville and Kenmore declined to even look at annexing any part of our area. Bothell looked at it, and decided against it. Perhaps the county or the state could carve up our area and force those cities to annex us, but is that what we want — to be carved up and annexed off in pieces? Most everyone I talk to in the PAA likes having a Kirkland address and wants it to stay that way. (And, by the way, Woodinville’s council is as dysfunctional as Kirkland’s — you should watch their webcasts sometime).
 
The people of the PAA should not make this decision based on the antics or fiscal record of the current Kirkland City Council. There will be at least two new members on the council this year, possibly more. There will be another opportunity for change in 2011, and every two years after that. Councils come and councils go. The PAA will have far more control over its destiny within the city than we will ever have trying to influencing the King County Council, which is dominated by Seattle interests and likely to continue to be that way for decades. If we want to have more control over the government that provides services to our neighborhoods, we should vote YES on annexation and try to change the Kirkland City Council to be to our liking, rather than taking our chances that King County Councilmembers representing Seattle will do what’s right for us.
 
Toby Nixon

I wholeheartedly support annexation to the city of Kirkland. There’s never been a better time to annex than NOW! Vote yes on Nov. 3.

Why?

1) King County is in much worse financial shape than the city of Kirkland. They don’t have the budget to support neighborhood services. They just keep cutting and cutting. Annexation is the only way to counter King County’s endless service cuts.

2) Police coverage will increase and response times decrease. Johanna’s examples ought to be enough, but I have my own. After a daytime burglary at my home some years ago, I wasn’t sure if the intruder was still in my house. I waited at a neighbor’s house for what seemed like eons before the King County Sheriff’s officers showed up. Investigation? Ha. On the other hand, we had a great experience with a Kirkland officer who recently took time to show my 3-year-old son his patrol car lights. Building those kinds of relationships early helps kids know that they can go to the police if they need help.

3) I have personally checked with the City of Kirkland Finance Department to ensure that the promise is true: even with debt service, property taxes will decrease by more than 14 percent.

4) And yes, even with a utility tax, total taxes will remain about the same or decrease slightly.

5) There’s hope of salvaging our parks with annexation to Kirkland. The county plans to close 132nd Square Park, Edith Moulton Park, and a handful of others in our area by the end of the year. While details have yet to be worked out, if annexation passes, the city parks director told me “Kirkland’s financial projections assumed that the city would have responsibility for neighborhood parks including 132nd Square, Edith Moulton, Juanita Heights Park, Kingsgate Park, Windsor Vista Park and Juanita Triangle.” It will take some time, but the plan is to bring the parks up to Kirkland’s standard of care. 

For the record, I’m your neighbor and have lived in the annexation area since 1992. I am a proud member of Citizens for One Kirkland. I’m a wife and mother, not an elected official or lawyer. I just want what’s best for my family. I hope you’ll join me in voting yes on Nov. 3.

Barbara Ramey

Juanita

We’ll receive better services without higher taxes. Police coverage will increaseWe can control our utility consumption and directly influence the amount of utility tax we pay. Total taxes will be somewhat lower for most families. If we’re not being adequately served or want a law changed, it will be much easier to go to downtown Kirkland than to Seattle. We’ll vote for Zoning and development will be overseen and enforced by officials minutes away, with neighborhood input, rather than by a county council and departments in Seattle. We can serve on and influence the park, planning, design review, and transportation boards, and neighborhood associations.