A formal resolution hasn't passed yet, but the Kirkland City Council signaled its willingness on March 27 to move on to Phase II of the proposal to annex Finn Hill, Upper Juanita and Kingsgate.
It's a complicated issue, and not everyone is enthusiastic about the annexation proposal, which was prompted by the state's Growth Management Act and favored by King County.
City Finance Director Marilynne Beard briefed the council on the results of the first phase of the planning, which involved public outreach and an initial look at long-range financial ramifications.
More than 400 people took part in public forums, briefings for community organizations, and at information booths at Kirkland's Farmers Market, she said.
But the public outreach was not meant to be a gauge of opinion on whether the city council should approve annexing the three communities, according to a briefing paper prepared for City Manager David Ramsay. Instead, the outreach was intended to gather opinions about what the city council should consider in its deliberations over the issue.
Indeed, Kirkland residents won't be able to vote on annexation; only the residents of the three communities will be allowed to do that. Still, the city council will make the final decision.
The Phase I outreach was designed to gather input from Kirkland residents, but people who lived in the proposed annexation areas also made their opinions known, Beard noted.
Major themes were land-use regulations and zoning, primarily in the annexation areas, she said. Some Kirkland residents also worried about whether they would have the same access to the city council as they do now if annexation takes place, according to Beard.
FINANCES WERE PRIMARY ISSUE IN PHASE I
But the latter comment was minor compared with the biggest concern about in annexation. "The primary issue was the financial implication," the finance director explained.
According to a 2005 study, Kirkland would pay out approximately $4.8 million more for services than it takes in if all three communities are annexed. For instance, 44 more police officers would have to be hired, according to the briefing paper.
The fiscal blow would be softened with state funding that would reduce the deficit to roughly $800,000, according to the study. "Without the state funding, we couldn't do this," Beard said at the council meeting.
However, the state funding only lasts for 10 years. What happens after that is unclear, although some scenarios would see a bump in revenue for Kirkland because there would be a larger tax base, she said.
There are also concerns about capital costs. The Kingsgate fire station might have to move, and there is also a question of whether a new jail would be needed, Beard said.
HOW MUCH FROM COUNTY?
Another unknown is how much money King County would kick in for the process. The county has $10 million set aside to help out cities with annexation, she said. "It would be up to us to negotiate how much we get."
Service levels will get a closer look in Phase II, as well as infrastructure needs, and a more detailed financial analysis will be done, Beard said.
And an outreach effort will be launched in the proposed annexation areas, along with continued outreach in Kirkland, she said. "King County has indicated it is willing to collaborate on the (Phase II) communication effort."
Kirkland would also set up a series of inter-local agreements with King County to deal with issues such as permits and police, Beard added. The agreements would spell out the county's financial commitments to annexation and the city's commitment to hold a vote over the issue next year, according to the briefing paper. And getting the money depends on Kirkland following through on annexation plans, Beard said.
2010 IS DEADLINE FOR FUNDING
The deadline for annexation is 2010 to get state funding, and assuming the city council wants to proceed, the vote would be next year.
City Manager Dave Ramsay said it would realistically take four to six months to complete work on Phase II. But council member Dave Asher was a little surprised at that estimate. "That is a heck of a lot of work in uncharted seas," is how he put it.
Council member Mary-Alyce Burleigh cautioned that Phase II may reveal elements that are unacceptable to Kirkland. "There are a myriad of unknowns in Phase II," she added. Still, she later signaled her willingness to move on to the next phase.
Deputy Mayor Joan McBride said she was pleased with the work done so far. "I'm actually very interested in going to Phase II," she said. McBride added that she didn't think moving forward committed the council to Phase III of the process, which culminates in a vote.
Council member Tom Hodgson said he had no problem moving on to Phase II, but he wanted to be very sure where funding is coming from.
STERNOFF: FINANCIAL SOURCE IS CRITICAL
Council member Bob Sternoff also said he'd like to move forward, although he added a caveat. "I think Phase II is the time for us to be very introspective on how we pay for this," he said.
Council member Jessica Greenway said she was ready to move on to Phase II, as did council member Tom Hodgson. And Mayor Jim Lauinger said he thought all the comments at the meeting were right on target. "Moving forward is the only reasonable thing to do right now," he added.
Ramsay said he would prepare a formal resolution for the council on moving to the next phase of the annexation planning. He hoped to have it done for the April 17 council meeting.
Staff reporter Russ Zabel can be reached at rzabel@nwlink.com or (206) 461 -1309.[[In-content Ad]]
