• Q: Do we have to annex all of the potential annexation area or can we just annex a part of it?
  A: We could annex one, two, or all three of the neighborhoods (Finn Hill, Upper Juanita, and Kingsgate). There are incentives for annexing a larger area with greater population (Kirkland would receive more funding from the State).

• Q: How would voting work if the Council decided to pursue annexation? Would Kirkland get to vote?
  A: Only the potential annexation area residents would vote, though the City Council would then get to either accept or reject an approved annexation ballot measure. Kirkland residents do not directly vote on annexation but are represented by the City Council.

• Q: Why is annexation being considered at all?
  A: In some respects, the City of Kirkland and the potential annexation area already function as the same city. Many people in the potential annexation area already use Kirkland services, have Kirkland addresses and share commercial areas and school districts. The State Growth Management Act calls for cities to annex unincorporated urban areas and to provide urban services to them.

• Q: How do we know what the Council members are thinking about this?
  A: At this early stage in the process, they want to listen to the community’s questions and concerns. They have not formally weighed in on the issue of annexation.

• Q: Would all the potential annexation area’s residents’ addresses change?
  A: Most residents in the potential annexation area already have Kirkland addresses, but it would be required for some.

• Q: Is this going to happen no matter what?
  A: No, the City Council is taking this process very slowly. They understand that this will be a big decision for the Kirkland and potential annexation area communities. The City will consider this issue step by step and are gathering citizen input and the information they need to help make these upcoming decisions.

• Q: Was annexation a discussion before the funding was available?
  A: Yes. The City has considered annexation several times in the past. The financial analysis showed that it would be too costly for the City. In light of the new state funding available, the City Council feels that they should consider annexation again and revisit the fiscal analysis and gather community input.

• Q: What is the rationale for the shape of the potential annexation area? Why can’t the area be divided into different sections and Bothell, Kenmore, and Woodinville take part of each section?
  A: Potential annexation areas are designated by cities and are adopted by King County as part of a regional planning document called the Countywide Planning Policies. All four cities surrounding the unincorporated area have their own designated potential annexation areas. In the City of Kirkland’s comprehensive plan, this area was selected as the City’s potential annexation area. A potential annexation area’s boundaries can be changed with a mutual agreement between a city and the consent of the County. In this case doing so would require the need to establish a logical alternative boundary.

• Q: Has there been an example of cities disagreeing with the regulations under the Growth Management Act? Is there an opportunity to say “No,” we do not agree with the values or goals of the Growth Management Act?
  A: The Growth Management Act tries to ensure that cities and counties within Washington State are working together. Annexation is consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act that cities should provide services to urban areas and counties should provide services to rural areas. Although cities take into account regional and state issues, the City Council will also consider the interest and values of Kirkland residents. There are no penalties at this time for not annexing the potential annexation area.

• Q: Does the potential annexation area vote as one block or as separate neighborhoods?
  A: An election measure can be segregated by neighborhood or be presented as one measure for the entire area. A final decision on how the ballot measure will be presented has not been made.

• Comment: I live in unincorporated King County near Bellevue and I’m glad to hear you acknowledge past “cherry picking” and that citizens are already paying their share.

• Comment: I think the City Council’s thoughtful decision-making process is wonderful.

• Comment: Annexation would increase the sense of community within the potential annexation area through organization of neighborhood associations and so on.

• Q: Is there such a thing as “un-annexation?” If the potential annexation area is annexed and it doesn’t seem to be working out, is there a way to reverse the decision?
  A: Although there is a process for an area to be transferred from one jurisdiction to another, it is more typically used for the transfer of smaller pieces of property between jurisdictions. The process involves the jurisdiction losing territory passing a resolution indicating its desire to “de-annex.” A report must be prepared for Boundary Review Board approval and then the receiving jurisdiction would hold a public hearing and pass an ordinance annexing the territory. If this process were utilized, the Boundary Review Board and King County Council would have to approve the change.

• Q: Will the ballot read as two separate measures? For example, one question about whether the potential annexation area would like to be annexed to Kirkland and a separate question potential annexation area residents if they’d like to assume their share of Kirkland’s debt as a condition of annexation?
  A: This decision has not been made yet.

• Comment: I believe that the ballot should ask for annexation and the assuming of debt together.

• Q: Is it possible for the City Council to initiate an advisory ballot in Kirkland?
  A: Yes. It would be a non-binding advisory measure.

• Q: Can we ask the County to make improvements within the potential annexation area before Kirkland initiates annexation?
  A: We anticipate that this will be part of the negotiation with King County if the City Council decides to proceed with the annexation process.

• Comment: I’m from the potential annexation area and I’m concerned that Kirkland has a pre-conceived idea about not wanting this to happen.

• Q: Why has it taken so long to get to this point? People living in the unincorporated area have been supporting Kirkland with sales tax revenue by shopping/eating at Kirkland businesses for years.
  A: The financial effects of annexation to the City have been the primary obstacle to date. The passage of legislation in 2006 providing State funding for annexations is prompting the reconsideration at this time.

• Comment: I live in the potential annexation area and would be happy to pay my fair share!

• Comment: We (residents of the potential annexation area) will probably need to know soon whether Kirkland would like to annex our area, because if not, we’ll need time to make other plans or start conversations with other cities.

• Comment: Discontinue all efforts to analyze annexation immediately. Let Woodinville, Bothell and/or Kenmore annex these places – the potential annexation area is probably a better fit for them.

• Q: Can the City Council say no to annexation? If it will cost $4.8 million/year to annex why even study this? Just say no!
  A: The City Council has authority for the final approval of annexation.

• Comment: There should be forums again after the financial analysis is complete, and before the City Council makes a decision to begin phase two.

• Q: How does the State feel about annexing unincorporated areas?
  A: Annexation of unincorporated areas is consistent with the Growth Management Act which is the State-adopted “blueprint” for land use in Washington. The State legislation that provides funding for annexations was intended to encourage annexation of unincorporated islands within urban areas.

• Comment: The process is too rushed. We need a financial analysis and more time to make comments before a decision is made to begin phase two.

• Comment: The decision-making process doesn’t seem rushed to me. If the City Council moves on to phase two that doesn’t mean that this is on the ballot, it just means that further studies will be done.

• Comment: “Cherry picking” areas has not been too blatant in the past.

• Q: What are the environmental impacts?
  A: Annexation itself will not have any environmental impacts. Potential impacts (whether positive or negative) could result from differences in environmental regulations between Kirkland and King County. An analysis of such differences has not yet been conducted.

• Q: Who is publicly supporting and opposing annexation?
  A: There is no identified group supporting or opposing annexation at this time. Residents and businesses in both the PAA and in Kirkland have expressed a range of support both pro and con.

• Q: Assuming the potential annexation area is pro-annexation, what if the vote were today?
  A: The City Council has not determined whether to take the annexation to a vote yet. We cannot predict the outcome of an election in advance.

• Comment: Juanita Beach is an example of a benefit of annexation.
  
• Comment: Please hold an advisory election for the City of Kirkland residents.
  
• Q: Did Totem Lake petition to be part of Kirkland or did the City just pursue annexation of this neighborhood?
  A: The annexation of Totem Lake was accomplished using the petition method. Under this method, a petition requesting the Council to annex an area must be signed by property owners representing at least 60% of the assessed value of the area to be annexed. The petition method is initiated by the property owners in the annexation area. The Council can then vote to accept or reject the annexation after holding a public hearing on the matter.
  
• Comment: The City Council should move on to Phase 2 and keep exploring annexation further.

Updated: July 5, 2007