Please Visit KirklandViews.com for future news regarding issues in Kirkland

Dear supporters,

Please join us at our new site, Kirkland Views (www.KirklandViews.com) and help shape the future of Kirkland by offering your opinions and joining in the debate.

At this time, the Save Kirkland website is not being updated regularly. We hope to see you again soon as this site will not go away... we are just going dormant for a while.

Thank you for all of your support.

Sincerely,

Rob Butcher

Seattle Times Reports Kirkland Annexation "On Hold"

On Saturday, April 19th, The Seattle Times reported, "After years of study, Kirkland's tentative plans to annex areas to the north have been put on hold again."

Concerns about the cost of providing police, fire and other services and an expected downturn in the city financial situation over the next several years are giving City Council members second thoughts.

Marilynne Beard, assistant city manager is quoted as saying that a formal vote on annexation might come up in May.

You can read the brief article here:

City Council Saves Kirkland - Annexation Defeated in Straw Poll

The prospect of insurmountable financial expenses and severe service level cuts lead to the demise of annexation last night at City Hall. It took years of study. It cost millions of dollars. It consumed far too much time of the countless City staff, council members, consultants and citizens. Annexation's fate was sealed when the City Council took a straw poll and annexation lost by a margin of 4-3.

Council member Joan McBride recognized the blow to annexation saying, "I can count as good as anyone and... I'm seeing a real strong kinda 4 to 3 and I'm pretty devastated by this."

Annexation died under of the crushing financial reality that it would bankrupt Kirkland. Simply put, Kirkland tried to bite off more than one city could chew.

The City opened the evening with yet another contortion act saying that under certain circumstances, given certain economic conditions, by modifying certain fundamental assumptions, and by breaking promises to Kirkland citizens, we could actually force the proverbial square peg into the round hole.

Make no mistake: The City staff tried every conceivable option (and quite a few inconceivable options) to make annexation finances work:

- cuts in service levels of Kirkland citizens
- tax increases
- fee increases
- cuts in police service levels
- cuts in fire staffing levels
- creating Class A and Class B citizens with different service levels
- fundamental changes to the City's financial structure
- wild-eyed development and taxation plans.

The resulting plan included all of the above options and it was the worst of the recommended courses of action to date.

All of this work was done in an effort to keep annexation alive. But in the end the financial burden was too great. The recent economic downturn only exacerbated the mess.

The City Council had seen enough.

The Kirkland City Council Straw Poll on Annexation:

Mayor Jim Lauinger -- OPPOSED
Council Member Tom Hodgson -- OPPOSED
Council Member Jessica Greenway -- OPPOSED
Council Member Dave Asher -- OPPOSED
Deputy Mayor Joan McBride -- FAVOR
Council Member Mary-Alyce Burleigh -- FAVOR
Council Member Bob Sternoff -- FAVOR

The primary arguments FOR and AGAINST annexation were:

AGAINST
- Crushing financial reality of taking on this burden would cripple Kirkland for decades;
- Massive tax increases and broad service level cuts would be in store for Kirkland citizens;
- Kirkland has its own structural financial issues it must deal with before it can think about annexations;
- The economic downturn made this the worst possible time to annex;
- Kirkland found itself chasing the "carrot" of state money at the detriment of sound civic policy;
- The enormous size and scope of this annexation was too much for Kirkland to absorb at once;

FOR
- Regional responsibility to abide by the principals of the GMA;
- PAA residents need better services;
- Kirkland would have a larger say in regional issues.


In the end, annexation sank under its own weight. Kirkland has always wanted to be in control of its own destiny. Last night it became clear that annexation would have controlled Kirkland's every move if passed. Kirkland would have had to give up control of its own destiny in order to annex.

The death of this annexation plan is the best possible outcome for both the PAA and Kirkland residents. It has diverted certain financial disaster.

Now each has the ability to explore other options rather than being bound together, doomed to sink under runaway expenses, diminishing service levels and ever higher taxes.

The PAA no longer is waiting and hoping for a magic pot of gold to fall into Kirkland's lap to pay for annexation. It is now free to pursue other options.

The City can now admit that we gave annexation our best shot. We tried our hardest and it just didn't work.

Hopefully Kirkland will now focus on our own financial problems. There are many. Stay tuned...

You can watch the video of the April 15, 2008 study session at the City of Kirkland's On Demand website.

Postscript

The Council's position did not sit well with some of the special interests groups in favor of annexation. At the City Council meeting that followed the study session, Onekirkland and PAA representative, Johanna Palmer, made an unveiled threat to Council members who voted against annexation. Come the next election cycle she said they will be targeted.

Kirkland citizens will not allow such threats to our representatives to go unanswered. SaveKirkland will be proud to support City Council Members who come under attack from those who wish to influence our elections.

The people of Kirkland will not look kindly upon any candidates who are manipulated by special interest groups from outside our city.

City of Kirkland Plans To Cut Services To Pay For Annexation

After three months of silence, Annexation has once again surfaced. The City of Kirkland's endless struggle to find the millions of dollars needed to annex the Potential Annexation Areas of Kingsgate, Juanita and Finn Hill has come up short. In January, the City Council concluded that annexation was not feasible. It opted to give the City more time to find additional money to pay for annexation. That time has now passed.

A three month quest for additional funds from the State of Washington appears to have come up empty. An offer for funds from King County has expired and will need to be renegotiated. There is no pot of gold available to pay for annexation.

Without additional money, how could Annexation possibly be viable? The City now has a new proposal for the Council: lower service levels for Kirkland to pay for annexation - in direct conflict with promises made by Councilmembers to the people of Kirkland.

Not only will the financial burden of annexation be squarely placed on the backs of Kirkland residents, the City is now suggesting we cut service levels of Kirkland residents as well.

Let us recall the numerous statements made by Councilmembers that "annexation will have no negative impact on the citizens of Kirkland."

It should be interesting to see how they try to spin this one.

You may download the Potential Annexation Update here. It is in PDF format.

The City will present this plan to the Council this Tuesday (it is open to the public).

Kirkland City Council Study Session on Annexation
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
6:00 PM
Peter Kirk Room of City Hall

Kirkland Annexation Will Force Higher Taxes and/or Lower Service Levels

The City of Kirkland is asking the City Council to break their promise that there will be no negative impacts from annexation for existing Kirkland residents.

After raiding every possible source of funds in the City and after squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of the City's projected operations, Kirkland still cannot make annexation work financially. Annexation will require over $50 million of additional capital expenditures and throw the City's finances into turmoil. The City is looking for new revenue sources and Kirkland residents are in their sights.

The most recent financial data makes the financial "gap" in Kirkland's budget projections even worse after annexation. Note: The City's use of the word "gap" is a softer way of saying the City is either over-spending or under-taxing, depending on your perspective.

This financial "gap" is structural and grows every year because the City's expenses rise at a faster rate than do the taxes collected.

Contrary to all of the City's previous statements over the past year, Kirkland now concedes that annexation will only make this financial situation even worse.

City manager Dave Ramsey was quoted in the Kirkland Reporter as saying,

“I think the understatement of the evening would be that we’re facing some sobering challenges. Business as usual is not going to get us there... something’s got to give.”

Despite the incessant push toward annexation by the City, there appears to be resistance among some on the City Council. It has been the City Council who have emphatically promised that annexation would have no negative impact on Kirkland citizens.

The City has already spent millions of dollars studying annexation to death. It is now time to put it to rest and stop spending money on this folly.

Here is a summary of the latest financial results showing the negative impact of annexation:


UPDATE
At the January 15th Kirkland City Council meeting, the decision was made to delay a GO/NO GO vote on annexation until sometime in April. The delay was requested so that the City could re-work the annexation analysis in an attempt to diminish the negative impacts annexation will have on Kirkland.

Kirkland Reporter Article on Annexation

This week in the Kirkland Reporter, there is an article on annexation that for the first time, includes sources outside of Kirkland City Hall. Thank you to Erika Hobart for the fair coverage. We look forward to reading future articles that are equally well sourced.

“I think the understatement of the evening would be that we’re facing some sobering challenges,” city manager Dave Ramsey said. “Business as usual is not going to get us there... something’s got to give.”

You can read the article titled, "Annexation’s critics making their voices heard" here or pick it up this week at local newsstands.

Kirkland City Council Examines New Jail Complex as part of Annexation Report

At the Kirkland City Council Study Session tonight (held in the Peter Kirk room at City Hall at 6 p.m.), staff will present the latest report on annexation: THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY.

An excerpt from page four of the report:

"The City of Kirkland is facing daunting and difficult decisions for their public safety facilities that requires consideration of many factors, some which may conflict with each other and other City needs."

Other annexation issues will be discussed as well. The public is welcome to attend.

Visit www.SaveKirkland.com for a full report after the meeting concludes.

Kirkland City Council Passes Resolution to Allow 6% Property Tax Increase

At the November 20th Kirkland City Council meeting, the Council voted (5 to 2) to "bank" six-percent of unused property taxing authority that resulted from the recent State Supreme Court ruling that found I-747 unconstitutional.

The City Council will now be able to raise property taxes by six-percent without the vote of the people. Since I-747 was enacted in 2002, the City's taxing authority has been limited to one-percent per year. Property tax increases higher than one-percent used to require a vote by the people. No more.

Council members Jessica Greenway and Bob Sternoff opposed the move stating that it was in direct contradiction to what the governor had asked of municipalities and that it would likely be overturned by the state legislature. They argued that this was in essence a vote for a tax increase because in the past when the City has had banked authority to raise taxes, it has always used it.

Governor Christine Gregoire made the following statement after the court ruling:

"As governor, I am asking the state, counties, cities and all other taxing districts to assure me that they will not increase property-tax levies for their upcoming budgets as a result of the court decision, in addition, I will be asking the Legislature, in January, to work with me to thoughtfully reinstate a property-tax cap."

The Kirkland City Council ignored the Governor and passed Resolution R-4677 which

1. increased the City's biennial budget by 7.98% in 2007-2008 compared to the 2005-2006 budget; and

2. banked the taxing authority of six-percent in the hope that the state legislature will not reinstate the one-percent tax cap.

You can read the Kirkland City Council resolution here and you can watch the proceedings at the City Council Video On-Demand Website (under Nov. 20th, item number 11 b. New Business - Preliminary 2008 Property Tax).

We had hoped to read about this development in the Kirkland Reporter, but apparently our local paper did not deem this story as newsworthy.

UPDATE
By request of the Governor, on November 29th, the State Legislature passed HB 2416 reinstating the one-percent property tax limit and eliminating the "banked capacity" created retroactively by the supreme court's ruling. HB 2416 specifically applies to taxes levied for collection in 2002 and thereafter. You can read the actual bill here.

Kirkland City Council Abandons Ship: Annexation Sinks Because of Finances

On Thursday, the Kirkland City Council sounded the alarm to abandon the annexation ship. As the latest financial analyses were reviewed by the Council, it was recognized by all that annexation could not be enacted without severe tax increases and/or service level reductions to existing Kirkland residents.

The annexation commitee will attempt to beg for additional funds from the State as a last ditch effort to salvage annexation, but the expectations for success are low. Olympia is not expected to increase their "carrot" of sales tax rebates meant to incentivize us into annexation. King County has rebuffed Kirkland's request for $18 million and has presented an offer of only $2.5 million.

Highlights of the evening:

• The City Council will not consider the option to "Revise Selected Assumptions and Continue with the Current Strategy"

• The City Council will not consider a "Revenue-Based Approach", thus creating "two Kirklands"

• The City Council did not vote on annexation, leaving that for another session.

Barring an unforeseen injection of money from the State, annexation will quietly sink under its own weight. The City Council may delay its scheduled December 11th GO / NO GO vote to continue annexation as some on the Council had requested. A minority of Council members were not willing to give up on annexation, hoping for a miracle. We will hear more soon.

To date, the City of Kirkland has spent a few million dollars on annexation studies. This will have been money well spent if it has saved Kirkland from a disastrous financial future. The City had to study this issue in depth given the incentives offered by the State. Now that we have found annexation to be untenable, it is time to end the debate and put annexation to rest. And stop spending money on it!

Much of the data posted on the City website refers to or makes conclusions based on financial reports that are now out of date. The City of Kirkland website has yet to reflect the latest financial data, therefor any conclusions made from information on the City's website would be erroneous. The recent City of Kirkland email sent to many Kirkland residents in defense of annexation also is now incorrect in its conclusions and should no longer be sent.

State law requires the City to post only factual data, therefor the City will be updating or revising their materials, but this will take time. As of this writing it has yet to take place. As a result, any person reading the City website today would be misinformed as to the truth of annexation.

Until the City corrects this situation, please refer to this latest financial report produced by the City. It is the only City report that reflects the reality of annexation today.

Annexation is not yet finished, but it is dead in the water and sinking fast.

Stay tuned. We'll keep you posted.

Shocking Report Admits Kirkland Annexation Failure - City Can't Make Annexation Feasible

On Friday afternoon, some residents of Kirkland received an email from the City of Kirkland defending annexation. Later that evening, the City posted a shocking financial report which will prove to be annexation's death nell. (you can download it here with highlights of the key points). The City Council will hold a special annexation session at City Hall on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. It is open to the public and you are encouraged to attend.

The report states,

"... it may be necessary to rethink our assumptions or the annexation itself. Staff believes that we have reached a point where it is necessary to reassess the underlying assumptions in our approach to annexation in order to achieve a financial balance using the tools available to the Council."

In other words, the game over. We tried to make annexation work and we could not. The financial obstacles are just too numerous to overcome.

The next course of action for the City Council is to explain this new reality to the people of Kirkland and put annexation to rest.

In an attempt to salvage annexation, the City has proposed two alternatives - each one a breach of the fundamental promises made by the City Council to the people of Kirkland.

There are three potential approaches for proceeding with the annexation study:

1. Revise Selected Assumptions and Continue with the Current Strategy
This option is a re-definition of annexation. The City would be saying, "We set the ground rules and we found out we can't make annexation work. So we will change the rules of the game, and hope that no one is watching. Then we can declare victory." - Sorry, we're watching.

This course of action is a non-starter as it would require material changes in the definition of what annexation would be. The City's promises to Kirkland over the past two years would be thrown out. The financial information we have relied on would be null and void.
This action would be tantamount to a child playing a family board game who finds himself frustrated by the fact he is losing. So he throws the game into the air and declares the start of a new game, this time with modified rules, so only he can win.

2. Pursue a “Revenue-Based Approach”
This would be a fundamental shift in strategy with regard to serving the PAA as it would provide only services which the PAA can actually afford. This would be a lower service level than originally promised. Staff would compare this lower service level to Kirkland service levels and note what, if any, impacts the lower service level might have on existing Kirkland.

This option would create a "Rich Kirkland" vs. "Poor Kirkland" scenario - an unseemly outcome for all parties involved. Again, Kirkland would be asked to throw out the window everything we have been promised about annexation. The City would change the rules of the game, and change the foundation upon which annexation has been sold. Another non-starter.

3. Do Not Proceed to Phase Three
The next go/no go decision was scheduled for the December 11th meeting and the Council could make a preliminary determination at this time not to proceed.

This is the only honest option available to the City Council. Kirkland gave annexation its best shot and it didn't work. Sometimes one can't force a square peg into a round hole no matter how hard one tries.

Let us all leave the annexation debate respectfully by acknowledging those who worked so hard to produce the numerous annexation studies and reports over the course of the past few years. They are good people working hard to follow City Council directives. It is time now for the City Council to issue a new directive. It is time to put annexation to rest.

Annexation, if it is to ever take place in Kirkland, is an issue best left for a future Council.

All Hands On Deck! Annexation Ship Is Sinking - Expected Revenues Fall as Expenses Rise

Bad news was around every corner at the 2007 - 2008 Mid-Biennial Budget Review for the City of Kirkland held November 7th. The City reported an unexpected drop in sales tax receipts which is a harbinger of more bad economic news on the horizon. The storm clouds of recession are forming and annexation is a burden Kirkland can ill afford during difficult economic times.

Sales tax receipts are a primary source of funding to keep the annexation financial ship afloat. The winds of recession are blowing our way and with recession comes lower tax revenues. The repercussions of this drop in revenues could break the promise that annexation will be revenue neutral to existing Kirkland residents. And the annexation ship will sink.

As if lower than expected revenues were not enough bad news, the City reported that estimated medical health benefit rates for City employees will grow at a staggering 14.8% for 2008 (compared with the 10% as originally budgeted). This blows out the expenses side of the annexation equation too.*

The reason these budget revelations are so foreboding is that annexation is being sold to existing Kirkland residents as an expansion which will bring neither higher taxes nor lower service levels. These promises simply no longer seem realistic.

Annexation is proving to be much more financially risky than the City had promised. In fact, we are entering a perfect storm where annexation revenue projections are falling as annexation expenses are rising faster than anticipated. Kirkland residents will be left paying higher taxes and/or getting lower service levels because of this folly called annexation.

The economic downturn that we are entering increases the financial risks of annexation. A full blown recession would devastate Kirkland's finances. In light of these facts, can anyone still deny that annexation is a financially risky scheme?

Batten down your financial hatches. The annexation storm is heading our way, and Kirkland is stubbornly steering straight into the storm.

It's time to abandon the annexation ship.

*You may recall that under the Kirkland Long-Term Fiscal Model Final Summary of Findings (annexation financial analysis), future health benefits estimates are magically capped at 6% annual growth (as compared to the historical growth rate of 10%) in order to allow the analysis to balance. This artificial 6% cap is looking more and more unrealistic in light of the actual rate of 14.8% as just released.
From page 14 of that report: "Two other key assumptions are the pre-FTE inflation rates of salaries and benefits, which have both been reduced in the 2011-2025 timeframe from levels predicted in the Base Kirkland Forecast. This reflects the fact that the model is a long-term fiscal model where the compounding effects of inflation rates can be quite large, and the shorter-term assumptions used in budgeting are not likely to be sustainable over time.
Salaries escalate at 6% through 2010 and 5% thereafter
Benefits escalate at 10% through 2010 and 6% thereafter"

Vote Against Annexation

Many of you have asked which of the candidates Save Kirkland supports in the upcoming election for Kirkland City Council. While we do not endorse any one candidate, we do want to be certain you are informed of each candidate's position on annexation.

This year, three of the seven sitting Kirkland City Council members are up for re-election. Both Dave Asher and Bob Sternoff are running for re-election unopposed.
The third Council member, Jessica Greenway, is running for re-election and she is being challenged by Penny Sweet.

Below is a link to each candidate's website. Annexation plays a prominent roll in this election as the candidates have different positions on the issue.

Council member Jessica Greenway
www.re-electgreenway.org/annexation_thoughts.htm

Quote from website:
"You may have heard comments indicating that if we don’t annex now, the state or the county will force us to do it at a later time, and without the financial benefits. This is not true. There are specific methods set forth by state law, each of which rely on actions by the City and the PAA, and there is no provision that would enable the state or the county to force us to annex. The decision rests with the City of Kirkland and the citizens of the PAA."

A recent e-mailing by the Re-Elect Greenway campaign states that Jessica will “Carefully consider all of the information about annexation, listen to Kirkland citizens, and make a decision that is in the best interests of Kirkland citizens”

Challenger Penny Sweet
www.sweetforkirkland.org/statement.htm

Quote from website:
"The time is now to be thinking 10 or 20 years out in terms of what kind of economic structure it will take to support this annexation. We have opportunity at Totem Lake to add significant retail and commercial property taxes to our revenue structure. There is also potential to further develop the business areas within the annexation areas. I do not believe annexation should happen upon the shoulders of the current Kirkland property tax payers but I also believe it is incumbent upon elected officials to make decisions that protect their cities from future risk. In this case that could take the form of a State imposed requirement to annex but this time without the financial support the state is offering right now."

For the purpose of full disclosure, Penny Sweet is married to State Representative Larry Springer (45th Legislative District, democrat), and former Kirkland Mayor. Rep. Springer was instrumental in supporting annexation as this quote from 2006 states, "I was the prime sponsor of several annexation funding bills the past two years. This past March the legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill to provide the funding needed for Kingsgate annexation as well as North Juanita and Finn Hill."

Don't forget to vote on or before Tuesday, November 6th!

Save Kirkland Mailer

Dear supporters,

Someone has produced a direct mailing which looks like it was the work of Save Kirkland. It was not.

While we are pleased that others in our community are against annexation, we had nothing to do with this mailing.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Rob Butcher

City Ends Public Forums Without Producing Financial Report

The City of Kirkland hosted two public forums to present to the public the second and final financial report on annexation. The only problem is, the report was not presented. It has not been completed because there is a great deal of financial information still unknown.

The tragedy of the situation is this: The City Council promised that the public would be able to review the financial report (PAA capital expenses) and to ask questions about it. That was the reason for these two public forums. Now our chance to review the financial repercussions of annexation has passed. The City plans no more public forums prior to their vote on annexation on December 11th.

The most disturbing part of these events is the rushed nature of the process. The public is not privy to the finances of annexation because the City has forced an artificial deadline of the end of the year. The Council's decision to stop or continue with annexation will be made on December 11th. Public disclosure and good governance are the casualties of annexation.

Artificial time constraints should not govern the process nor prevent the Council from keeping their promises to the public.

Something is very wrong with this process.

Write the City Council and let them know your thoughts on annexation at citycouncil@ci.kirkland.wa.us

93% of Kirkland Respondents Against Annexation

The people of Kirkland are opposed to annexation, but our City Council is not listening.

Over 93% of the cards, letters and emails sent to the City by Kirkland residents reflect that the people are opposed to annexation and/or that Kirkland wants to vote on annexation. These cards and letters gather dust as they tell a tale different than what the Council wants to hear.

The Kirkland City Council has refused to let Kirkland vote on annexation. They wont even take an opinion poll of the people. Why might that be? Might the Council be afraid of the response they would get?

According to the City, the reason for denying a vote to Kirkland residents is "...the complexity of the annexation decision is not well suited for an advisory vote...". At the same time that the Council is denying Kirkland a vote on annexation (because the issue is too complex to understand), the City is preparing to let the PAA vote on annexation. Apparently annexation is not too complex for the PAA to understand, so they will be able to vote.

The reality of the situation is this: the City of Kirkland is forcing annexation upon its residents, not allowing them to vote or even to be polled on the issue. If annexation is such a compelling argument, then why wont the City Council trust in the people of Kirkland to know what is in their own best interests?

Kirkland City Council: Do the right thing and let Kirkland vote. Don't push annexation down our throats. Let annexation stand or fall on its own merits.

If annexation is to be in our future, then let both Kirkland and the PAA enter into this union as equals. Let Kirkland residents have a say in our future. Don't force Kirkland into this arranged marriage.

If the Kirkland City Council is going to let the PAA vote on annexation, then fairness dictates they let Kirkland vote too.

To read what fellow Kirkland residents have to say about annexation, visit our online petition to the Kirkland City Council and click on "View Current Signatures"

City of Kirkland: How Much Will Annexation Really Cost?

This letter was sent to the City of Kirkland on October 6, 2007

Dear Kirkland City Council-members,

Now that the City has presented both the operating expenditures analysis and the capital expenditures analysis, we think it necessary to request a year-by-year cost breakdown of annexation.

Therefore, we respectfully request answers to the following questions:

1. What is the financial impact of annexation on the existing Kirkland residents, comparing the revenues and expenses for each year during the period of 2010 thru 2025? This would be an analysis including the five years past the period in which state funding would end.

2. Will the City please produce a cost comparison of facilities needs both with and without annexation? We suspect that Kirkland would proceed at a different pace with plans to expand City Hall, Public Safety, and Maintenance facilities if annexation were not being considered. The costs of these facilities would be drastically reduced without annexation and the timing of such expansion would change as well. Some facilities, such as a replacement for Fire Station #34 would not even be need.

The purpose of these requests is to convey, in a simple manner, the year over year costs of annexation so the City Council and the people of Kirkland can examine the impact of annexation.

Annexation may be a wonderful thing for Kirkland, or it may be a financial disaster. In any event, one cannot make a rational decision without the facts at hand. The City already has the necessary data for this request so it should be simple produce.

The City consistently states that if annexation passes, it may have a neutral or slightly positive effect on the City finances in the “Long Term" while the City glosses over the intervening years in what is referred to as the “Short Term". The problem is, existing Kirkland citizens will have to "subsidize" the negative impact of the "Short Term" years of annexation.

Even in the best case scenarios, Kirkland will have to subsidize the PAA for the next 15 to 20 years and after that time, the City will be in the same financial predicament it is in today. Annexation does not solve our financial "gap". What happens each year from 2010 thru 2025 is an important question that needs to be answered.

This analysis is crucial because the City Council must balance the budget each year, and the most difficult years will be those during the “Short Term”. The Council needs to know this information before it can make a rational decision to either proceed with annexation or not.

Thank you for your consideration. Granting of this request will allow you, our elected representatives, to clearly articulate the costs of annexation and to reaffirm the promise of making the annexation process as open and accessible to the public as possible.

Sincerely,

Rob Butcher

Annexation Pro and Con Debate

On Wednesday, October 3rd there will be a discussion about the pros and cons of annexation to be held during the Norkirk Neighborhood meeting, 7pm at Heritage Hall.
The city will be presenting annexation. I will be offering a slightly different perspective.
Bring your questions and comments. We expect the mayor and at least one other city council member to be in attendance.

Hope to see you there!

Annexation briefing to be a part of October 2nd Study Session

On Tuesday, October 2nd, there will be a briefing on annexation made to the City Council at their regularly scheduled 6:00 pm study session in the Peter Kirk room at City Hall. These sessions are open to the public and they are televised live on cable channel 21.

Kirkland to Host 2 Annexation Public Forums

After a long August of little activity on the Annexation front, things are heating up again as the city prepares a marketing blitz for October. Soon to be released is the second and final fiscal analysis to be followed by a decision by the Council. The City of Kirkland is hosting two public forums on annexation this Fall. They are open to both Kirkland residents and residents of the PAA.
The purpose of these forums is to present the latest fiscal analysis on capital expenses in the PAA.
Every citizen of Kirkland who is concerned with the future of our city NEEDS to attend these forums. They are that important. The City Council will be in attendance and they need to hear your voice. Bring your questions and comments to the meeting. This is our last chance to speak to the Council at a public forum on annexation. The Council's GO or NO GO decision on annexation will take place shortly thereafter. Sparks will fly. It should be fun. MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!!!

From the City:
Information will be presented by City and King County representatives about zoning and permitting, infrastructure assessments, financial impacts, and police and other services.

October 23
St. John Vianney Church
12600 84th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98034
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Google Map

October 25
Kirkland Jr. High
430 18th NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
7:00-9:00 p.m.
Google Map

Eleven Registered Sex Offenders Living In Kirkland and The Potential Annexation Area

According to the Washington State Sex Offender Information Center,
Kirkland has two registered sex offenders living within the city limits.
The Potential Annexation Area (PAA) has an additional 9 registered sex offenders.


It seems as if violent crime is becoming more prevalent in our area with reports of child abduction, rape and murder not uncommon on the Eastside. According to the 2005 Crime Comparison at AreaConnect, Kirkland crime rates for rape, robbery, burglary and auto theft have plenty of room for improvement.
As a resource for citizens to protect themselves, the state has created The Washington State Sex Offender Information Center which lists information about registered sex offenders. Through the site one can search local neighborhoods, cities or counties to find the location of convicted sex offenders living nearby. The site even offers photographs and descriptions of the registered offenders.
Kirkland has two registered sex offenders living within the city limits. The Potential Annexation Area (PAA) has an additional 9 sex offenders.
A search for registered sex offenders in Seattle brings up a list of so many offenders (over 100) that the system needs more narrow criteria before it can create maps of registered addresses.
Sadly, it appears that the value of this system of public information is flawed for two key reasons:
1. The system uses addresses of the sex offenders who actually register with the state. The state acknowledges that a great many offenders never register. According to a 2003 article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the state has 17,393 registered sex offenders. Law enforcement officers were not able to verify the address of 1,753 of these offenders. The numbers today look even worse.
2. One third of the high risk sex offenders say they are homeless, thus taking advantage of a loophole in the system, according to an article in the Seattle Times.
The lenient sex offender laws need to be overhauled. Citizens in a civil society should not have to live in fear of these predators. The system is underfunded thus making the job of law enforcement all the more difficult. Take the time to learn more and protect your family against violent crime. Some shocking statistics about sex offenders in our state are found in this August 28, 2007 Seattle PI article.