Boundary Review Board annexation hearing, night 2: There will be a night 3

This first part will sound a lot like last night’s initial report: After a second three-hour of testimony, the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County will meet for a third night – but no more public comment. You’re invited to their 7 pm January 23rd meeting at a location TBA, but it’s all about their deliberations, no more testimony. (Here’s who’s on the board, in case you wondered.) WCN co-publisher Patrick Sand recorded tonight’s meeting at White Center’s Cascade Middle School on video again and we’ll add that in the hours ahead, once it’s processed (unedited, but still takes time to upload). He says that after last night’s testimony was weighted toward opposition to Burien annexation of White Center and most of the rest of unincorporated North Highline, tonight’s went the other way, with more pro-annexation speakers than anti-.

Of note – this time around is VERY different than March 2009, when the Boundary Review Board’s hearing on the first Burien/North Highline annexation lasted for ONE night, less than two hours, and ended with a preliminary vote in favor of the proposal. Here’s our as-it-happened coverage from that night almost three years ago. Meantime, more to come on what happened tonight.

ADDED EARLY WEDNESDAY: The first video clip, almost 2 hours, includes all the Tuesday night testimony:

The second, a little more than an hour (following a break called by the board), includes the city of Burien’s rebuttal and replies to questions asked during the first night:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

7 Responses to “Boundary Review Board annexation hearing, night 2: There will be a night 3”

  1. No Burien, Yes Seattle Says:

    Thanks for posting. Wish I didn’t have to work a later schedule so that I could have been there. Would have liked to explain why I think being annexed by Burien is the wrong decision for my part of White Center, and why Seattle would be better in the long run.

  2. After hearing everyone last night, sure made you proud to be part of this community!

  3. Bill Shipsen Says:

    It scares me if Burien Annexes that we would be governed by a city manager with apparently no accountability to the voters.
    The Burien City Council has failed to oversee this failure of a manager who resigned as Chief Administrative Officer for the city of Kent after a 2005 hit-and-run incident and then was again convicted for a DUI in 2009 in Burien where he refused to take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test. The city manager doesn’t have a track record for delivering major projects at the costs they were originally projected. As Project 911 director for the city of San Francisco, Project 911 was supposed to cost the citizens $63 million. On completion, it cost $166+ million—not to mention the labor issues and legal costs that came from the project. The tax rate that was supposed to finance the project had to be doubled to pay for the project—Oct. 7. 1997, San Francisco Chronicle.

    Recently, two major road projects in Burien were not delivered on time or at projected costs. The city had to pay a legal settlement of $2.75 million for First Avenue, which it could not afford.

    A new bond had to be put out for the city to pay off these settlement costs. This means increased costs to the citizens.

    The Ambaum project had cost overruns of $500,000. According to Martin’s figures, the annexation of Area X—14,000 people, cost the city almost nothing in new staff. Area X got service, so who paid for the staff? —Strange math.

    The Town Square project is an economic bust. The city manager refuses to listen to the business community. Instead, he’s given away all of the park land, open space and public facilities rights that belonged to the citizens of Burien—in the Northeast development Area, NERA—to the Port of Seattle in exchange for exactly nothing.

    So why is it that the citizens of Burien should now believe that he is the guru of predicting what the real cost of annexing North Highline/White Center will cost the citizens of Burien?He continues to give himself a raise every year even when COLA was at zero. He is overpaid and unsupervised. He blew a half million dollars last year on a road project contractors over run and tried to blame it on the incompetence of his public works dept. The BUCK does NOT stop with him and speaking of bucks, using a third party to do a report on annexation costs which was incomplete used fuzzy math, invalid assumptions that have been proven wrong and contradicted its own 2007 report as the city budget/business plan for the annexation proposal is ludicrous, but he brazenly pretends that its hunky dory.
    Martin has a cozy relationship with the Berk group and since he is using city funds to pay for it .. he is also paying them to come up with a slanted report that supports his annexation agenda. Area Y buyers beware.. annexation by Burien may leave you wondering why you were not more careful about what you wished for.

  4. Your post seems to be based on perceptions and not fact. Remenber the city is not responsible for bad business practices by Urban Partners or the fact that the economy is in a monstrous slump. Or the fact that the records kept on 1st Avenue and Ambaum Blvd. by the County were sketchy at best, causing surprises for both the contractor and the city. Please provide me(and others) with links to the information about Mr. Martin and his dealings with the Burien City Council that you have based the above statement on. Thank you.

  5. Bill Shipsen Says:

    Gunsul.. All my statements are in the public record and are facts… I am not responding to vague generalities raised by you .. .Ask a SPECIFIC question and I will google it and give an answer here.. I have read the Burien Blog and you are a rabid gung ho dam the torpedoes full speed ahead regardless of the consequences Annexation supporter.. Its no wonder you would try and defend your chief ally in this Mike Martin, even if in reality his poor performance and record not to mention his drinking problem are indefensible. Its the job of the city manager to take many factors into account, he has not, did not and continues along the same garden path that has resulted in fiscal disasters in the past.

  6. Bill Shipsen Says:
  7. Bill Shipsen Says:


    Its not surprising to me that you come to the defense of Mike Martin since he is your chief ally in the annexation folly that Mike Martin is perpetrating.
    HOWEVER all the Facts I have presented are verifiable and in the public record.
    If you question any of them I suggest you present a rebuttal yourself. I am not going to do the research for you, especially when it does not exist except in the mind of the beholder.