White Center Now: The blog about White Center

By Tracy Record
White Center Now editor

The second North Highline annexation-election info campaign has begun, with almost six months to go until the expected November vote.

This wasn’t technically a campaign event, in terms of pushing a particular point of view, but rather, Burien’s first “outreach” event this time around. Glen Acres Country Club played host; the meeting was not widely promoted, as the clubhouse there had only capacity for the with about three dozen people in attendance.

Standing in front of a sweeping wall of glass that ironically had a distant view of downtown Seattle – the city that had dibs on this area but chose not to pursue – Burien city manager Mike Martin (top photo) led the presentation – “You’re the very first public forum that we’ve having,” he told them, promising to offer “high-level remarks” but also focus on questions. Other Burien reps included Police Chief Scott Kimerer and city analyst Nhan Nguyen, who worked for White Center Community Development Association before joining the city last year.

Unveiled tonight was the new official FAQ/fact sheet regarding annexation and what it would be like if it is approved and implemented by the Burien City Council, likely to take effect, city manager Martin said, in spring 2013.

It does not appear to be online as of this writing, but includes these bullet points:
*2,045 acres proposed for annexation
*About 17,400 people (last census; 2010 numbers not crunched yet)
*White Center, Top Hat, Beverly Park, Glendale included, along with parts of Boulevard Park, Riverton Heights, and Shorewood
*Burien would take over North Shorewood, White Center Heights, Lakewood parks, while Steve Cox Memorial Park would stay with the county, as a regional facility

Many things don’t change, he said. So – he acknowledged, one big question – what DOES change?

“A very progressive governance in Burien .. would focus its attention on this area,” is one major thing.

First question:

Would Burien go to the Port of Seattle to have this area designated as a noise-abatement area, given that “planes fly so low through here … my son (a pilot) can pick out my garage door”? asked a woman. (Planes could be heard rumbling overhead now and then throughout the meeting.)

Martin’s answer boiled down to no, although he said some things can be addressed, such as “if they start flying really lousy patterns.”

Burien councilmember Jerry Robison (foreground in photo), who said he hadn’t come intending to speak but did end up answering more than a few questions, chimed in that while the noise situation isn’t under local control, things can be done “to make them be better neighbors.”

Chief Kimerer spoke next. “I hope we’re getting to a point where we have some resolution .. the story hasn’t changed regarding what would change with police services. Regarding what we’ve accomplished with the first annexation, I’ve heard very positive comments. … What we’re hoping, and what our plan is, is providing at least the same level of service provided out here with the Sheriff’s Office. I am going to take most of the people who work out here and they will be in a green uniform one day and a blue uniform the next.”

He said they would look forward to keeping the White Center storefront. But he said “being in a city, as opposed to being in a county,” gives law enforcers “more tools” to deal with problems – such as proposing ordinances. The bigger team he has since the previous annexation, he said, gave Burien PD a “bigger team” for “different strategies,” including a gang unit, undercover enforcement, the “Secret Squirrel stuff” that’s “really cool,” and more. Ultimately, they have a “lot of flexibility” in dealing with emerging trends, he said.

Next question – what about enforcement of “junk cars … in the right of way” and similar nuisances? asked an attendee, wondering if Burien would have more code-enforcement officers. That’s primarily a city staffing issue, the chief noted, while adding that his officers are “very aware” of those issues. Martin added that the city feels it’s “a quality of life issue that we can address.” Councilmember Robison also jumped into the discussion, noting that as a real-estate lawyer, he has been on both sides of such cases. He acknowledged that King County’s code-enforcement officer for this area “also covers Vashon Island, Skyway, and other areas,” while Burien’s officer has a much-smaller area to handle.

Martin then elaborated: “There are two schools of code enforcement … you go out and everything you see, you go after, or, you go after everything that is reported.”

Next question: If annexation is approved, will Burien reassess the property? Robison pointed out that cities don’t control assessments, the county does. “So your tax-assessed value would not change as a result of the annexation.” Martin took the occasion to point out that of your tax dollar, most of the money goes to the school district (currently >Highline Public Schools, which is how it would remain post-annexation), while only a small portion (12 cents) goes to the city. Robison suggested checking your annual property tax bill to see what part of the money goes where.

As noted on the FAQ/fact-sheet, your taxes/fees will go up about $90/year if you have a residence worth $200,000, said Martin. It was clarified in response to another question, that none of the increase results from the school district (one man pointed out that there are no kids at Glen Acres, so “what’s in it (school tax) for me?”) – the area remains in the Highline Public Schools district, annexed or not annexed. Martin took the occasion to counter that there is “something in it” for everyone, parents or not – “human capital.”

One difference: Burien has a business-and-occupation tax, while the county does not. Would the Glen Acres clubhouse pay that? Councilmember Robison pointed out some exceptions, such as, no tax on alcohol sales. Membership fees don’t count either, he said. Martin promised more research on some of the specifics that would apply to Glen Acres.

“Would this change our address from Seattle to Burien?” Martin’s reply: “Yes and no, no and no … you can put Seattle on it and it will still get to you, but your correct city would be Burien.”

Is there an option to stay unincorporated? it was asked. “It is possible …” said Martin. “There is nothing that compels residents to be part of any city … but I’ll tell you something: What you’ve seen in the last couple years is a gradual decline in the amount of money the county is able to put into areas like this … and it’s getting worse and worse. It’s not doom and gloom, it’s just a fact; if the County Executive was standing here with me, he’d agree. … Once that decline starts, it’s very difficult to get on top of. Roads, once they get to a certain lack of maintenance, are (more expensive to fix/restore).”

He said he fears that if it stays unincorporated, “this area right on our border will be neglected … Remaining in unincorporated King County for another five years is not going to be pretty.”

Asked about crime rates, Chief Kimerer said there’s an index which shows 53 per thousand for Burien, 62 per thousand for Seattle – overall, he said, there’s no “vast difference” in crime rates, and overall, Burien crime has been going down; the index used to be 75, he said.

He also was asked about traffic enforcement, and whether the city would ever have a dedicated traffic-enforcement officer. According to the chief, all the officers are trained in radar, and traffic becomes part of many people’s jobs. “Burien PD does write traffic tickets,” affirmed Robison. “Particularly in school zones.” Traffic-calming measures also were mentioned.

Other questions included property values and building codes. Will Burien’s procedures be cheaper/more streamlined? Martin said he believes his city is “head and shoulders over the county” in terms of process.

Counties, he reminded everyone, are not “built” to handle urban services. “I’m not telling you that we’re going to come in and the world is going to change,” he said, but a city is better suited to serve residents’ needs.

How’s the previous annexation going? one attendee then asked.

It’s been more than 2 years now, Martin began his answer – 14,000 residents brought in $550,000 state sales-tax credit. He said Burien didn’t add any more staff, though it did add some police officers. “We went through this whole rancorous process, but when we actually did it, it was like shouting into the Grand Canyon, it was great, and I think people are satisfied and happy,” he said.

Chief Kimerer said for his department, “it was seamless”; they added 13 officers, and the crime rate went down. As he acknowledged, the previous annexation area is residential, no businesses, unlike this one. “It’s been really a deafening silence,” he said. Councilmember Robison said, “I haven’t heard any complaints.”

Martin pointed out that because of a Seattle lobbying effort, this annexation would bring the city 10 times the sales-tax-credit revenue, though he quickly added, “this will be a more complex annexation … we’re going to be adding more staff and planners and code enforcement … it’s going to take about two years for everything to settle down.”

Then came the thorny subject of animal control (as discussed at the last North Highline Unincorporated Area Council meeting). Martin said he’s proud of his decision to terminate the relationship with King County’s animal control and believes there’s a higher level of service now. He said he doesn’t know the current euthanasia rate; however, he said, animal control “is a discretionary function. He said the newest stats will be available next month in a report, though “if our euthanasia rates are higher than the county, I’m good with that.”

What about coyotes? asked a woman.

Martin said he could relate because, when he lived in Auburn, he lost his dog to a coyote. If there is a problem animal, he said, they get state Fish and Wildlife to come out – “they have people specially trained to trap and shoot them.”

He was asked about urban-renewal projects, and mentioned the Burien plan to move auto dealers over to a particular area north of the third runway, to reclaim commercial land that auto businesses had been using elsewhere, particularly on downtown 1st Avenue.

Robison said that with annexation, Burien would hope to encourage more development beyond the current heart of Burien – Top Hat and White Center, for example – and “build this up so we don’t have vacant tracts and empty buildings sitting around.”

Before rezoning, Martin promised, “we’re going to ask – ‘what’s your vision?’ Then it becomes your obligation to tell people what you want, to participate.”

Resident Bob Price said he considers annexation “a chance to take care of your own destiny.”

“Bob is right,” said Martin. “There’s a choice here.”

And there’s more information – at burienwa.gov/annexation, or answers to questions if you e-mail annexation@burienwa.gov. Watch for word of the next meeting.

(TOPLINE: Burien councilmembers have voted 4-3 in favor of an annexation election for residents of White Center and environs – but after changing the plan so that it would go on the November ballot, not the August ballot.)

(ADDED TUESDAY – WCN video of Burien councilmembers speaking before the vote. Unedited but starts about two sentences into CM McGilton’s remarks)
7:05 PM: We’re in the Burien City Council chambers, where Deputy Mayor Rose Clark is presiding in Mayor Brian Bennett‘s absence as the council starts its regular meeting. We’re here because of one particular item on the agenda – whether to set the date for a vote on annexation of most of the rest of North Highline. The meeting is beginning with a special guest appearance by King County Councilmember Julia Patterson, who says she is “delighted” to have part of Burien back under her wing as the result of the recent redistricting. We’ll be updating as this meeting proceeds – mostly about public commenters speaking about annexation, and then the council agenda item, unless something else inbetween seems to be of White Center interest. More to come!

7:30 PM: The public-comment period is now under way. First person speaking is Goodspaceguy, who does not seem to be speaking about annexation. Roger Delorum speaks next, talking about “fiscally irresponsible” data regarding annexation. “If this annexation happens, someone is going to gain financially, and it’s not going to be the citizens of Burien.” His short remarks were followed by those of Doug Harrell, who says he’s urging the council to move forward with the annexation, saying it would bring “opportunities of scale.” He adds that he believes people in those area will “have a voice in their future as part of Burien, and I have no confidence they would have a voice as a part of Seattle.” Unlike many other local governments, he says, Burien is in good financial shape, and its leaders “would not consider going forward if it were not prudent for the citizenry” – himself included. He was followed by Joey Martinez. He notes that he works for Seattle and it has a lot to offer North Highline, but: “I feel that Burien is the superior option” for annexing what’s left of North Highline. He says he doesn’t mind which election the council decides to use, August or November, but he thinks they should make a decision on one or the other tonight.

7:38 PM: Next speaker, Elizabeth Gordon, who is a White Center business co-owner. She says she and her customers favor being annexed to Burien. She is talking about how businesses, citizens, and organizations in the unincorporated area are “coming together” to work on improving their area, and she thinks that “supportive network” will help bring a good turnout, even in the summertime vote. She is followed by Aaron Garcia. He says he grew up in White Center, went to Cascade Middle School, Evergreen High School, UW, and he is here “in support of the resolution” to send annexation to voters. “No matter where you lie in this, whether you think White Center is a problem or has potential, we need someone to hear our voices, we need someone to advocate for us … I really, really support moving forward for this and I am a huge advocate for this.” After him comes Sandra Hopp, who says she lives in the recently annexed area and wasn’t for it then but is glad to be part of Burien now. After her is Gill Loring, who lives in the unincorporated area, and is talking about his graffiti-fighting activities in conjunction with the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council. He brings up the abandoned, overgrown, graffiti-covered former El Chalan restaurant – “We’re trying to get that taken care of.” He says he did a straw poll in his neighborhood, overwhelmingly in favor of being annexed by Burien.

7:48 PM: Next at the podium, Ed Dacy, who says he’s been coming to meetings about annexation for 10 years. “I’ve kept an open mind, I’ve looked at the studies …” He thinks the potential financial picture for annexation is even brighter than those studies have shown. “I can’t see a reason not to annex – I think we should go ahead with it.” He also noted that “one strong proponent of annexation … was not able to be here tonight,” referring to Liz Giba of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council and North Highline Fire District Board. After him, Chestine Edgar: She counters by saying that some people who speak about the financial studies, in her assessment, “clearly have not read” the reports, and cites some past reports she says forecast financial difficulty for Burien if annexation was pursued. She says annexation “is not an economically sound idea for the city of Burien,” and does not want to see it put before voters. Besides that, she talks about the lack of agreement between fire districts, a lack of a business plan, and the fact the “sliver on a river”‘s fate has not yet been resolved, and she criticizes NHUAC for “pushing annexation,” just as her time runs out.

7:56 PM: NHUAC president Barbara Dobkin is speaking now, noting that “questions continue to be raised” about NHUAC’s identity and purpose. She says annexation is an issue that affects them, “affects our future,” but it’s not “the only thing we are working on.” She says everyone is invited to their meetings – one’s coming up this Thursday, and will take a look at the Technology Access Foundation project under construction in Lakewood Park. She also speaks about NHUAC’s close relationship with the King County Sheriff’s Office. “The Seattle model of policing differs greatly from what would be offered in Burien,” Dobkin observes, and brings up the US Department of Justice investigation of Seattle Police. She says she feels the timing of the election should be left up to the Burien Council. The next speaker is Robbie Howell who says that she feels “the deck has been stacked against the citizens of Burien,” regarding its finances; she believes services have been on the decline and that Burien can’t afford to “acquire an area that has problems also.” Then Tina Holmes speaks, on behalf of Liz Giba, who she says suffered a stroke eight days ago, and is in Riverton Rehabilitation Center. She speaks of many people lost in recent years who were strong supporters of Burien annexation of North Highline. Holmes holds up a T-shirt she says her sister had made years ago – a blue T-shirt with white lettering, “Say No to Seattle.” She is the last speaker, and now the council moves to other business.

8:33 PM: A long presentation about Seattle City Light‘s strategic plan ensued, with SCL superintendent Jorge Carrasco, who deputy mayor Clark noted is the first SCL rep she recalls seeing here in the years she’s been on the council. Councilmember Jack Block Jr. is grilling Carrasco, and now Mayor Brian Bennett has arrived.

8:45 PM: Not to annexation yet; the council agreed to City Manager Mike Martin‘s suggestion to shelve a discussion of the transportation agenda, but is going ahead with what several said they hope would be a “short presentation” by Discover Burien, whose leaders are talking about their increased outreach and programming.

8:51 PM: And now, they’re on to the annexation resolution. Councilmember Block moves to table the motion. A roll-call voice vote is requested. Bennett: No, Clark: No, Block: Yes, Edgar: Yes, Krakowiak: Yes, McGilton: No, Robison: No. So the motion to table fails. Bennett now moves to ask King County to set the date for November.

9:29 PM: After half an hour of discussion, the council has just voted 4 to 3 to send annexation to the ballot – but in November, not August. Yes votes were Bennett, Clark, McGilton, and Robison no votes were Block, Edgar, and Krakowiak. We have the half-hour of discussion on video and will add it to this story when we are back at HQ and it is processed. The King County Council will have to formally approve the annexation election, which would involve the prospective annexation area, NOT the people who already are residents of Burien.

They can vote tonight … they can vote in two weeks … they can decide to not vote at all … they can decide to vote lots later and try for the November election instead … the possibilities are many; the agenda is here, for tonight’s Burien City Council meeting, 7 pm at council chambers (400 SW 152nd), which COULD result in a decision to put remainder-of-North-Highline annexation on the August 7th ballot. If you can’t be there, the live video feed will be on burienmedia.org.

Just in from tonight’s Burien City Council meeting: They’ve set April 2nd, their next meeting, as the date to “consider” whether to proceed with an annexation election. Under a timeline set out by city administration, they would have to decide either then, or April 16th, that they wanted an August 7th election, in order for that to proceed through the system in enough time for that to happen.

Addressing one ongoing concern, City Manager Mike Martin told the council he has sought repeated assurances that the sales-tax credit will remain in the state budget – and so far, it’s still there. Burien says that money is vital to being able to afford the annexation. (At one point, Governor Gregoire had proposed cutting it, but that proposal stalled.) Councilmember Jack Block Jr. wondered what the latest date for a decision would be if they were seeking to put annexation on the November ballot instead of the August ballot.

During the public-comment section at the start of the meeting, 12 of the 15 speakers talked about annexation – seven against, five for. Among the pro-annexation speakers was Vera Johnson, proprietor of Village Green Perennial Nursery:

She said she decided at the last minute to show up and speak; she believes it would be overwhelmingly positive for Burien to annex White Center. We have the entire public-comment period on video, along with the discussion on the annexation item, and will add those clips as soon as they are uploaded following our crew’s return to HQ.

ADDED 11:12 PM: Here’s the video from the public-comment period. It is unedited, starting with the second speaker during that part of the meeting, the first one to address the annexation issue, and continuing through the last speaker, who also talked about annexation:

At about 34 minutes into the video, Barbara Dobkin speaks to the council for, she said, the first time as North Highline Unincorporated Area Council president, recounting the council’s support for annexation, and its accomplishments in recent years, including advocacy on behalf of concerned residents dealing with difficult issues.

The agenda and “packet” for next Monday night’s Burien City Council meeting are now published online, and among the agenda items is:

Discussion Regarding If and When to Adopt Resolution No. 330, Requesting King County to Hold a Special Election on August 7, 2012 for the Purpose of Placing on the Ballot a Proposition Concerning Annexation of the North Highline Area “Y” Annexation Area

Burien city administration’s recommendation, according to the agenda documents, is that the council schedule its vote for either the April 2nd meeting or the April 16th meeting. In order to make all necessary deadlines for having an August 7th annexation election, the documents say, the County Council has to adopt an ordinance creating the annexation ballot measure by May 7th. (You can see the agenda documentation for yourself by going here.)

By Patrick Sand and Tracy Record
White Center Now co-publishers

One day a few months back, the raised dividing line on 16th SW in downtown White Center all but suddenly appeared after the street was resurfaced. Many in that area wish it would suddenly, or not-so-suddenly, disappear. That was a big topic at Thursday night’s meeting of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council.

THE DIVIDER: King County Department of Transportation’s Mark Mitchell was at the meeting to address those concerns and other traffic-related issues. He said the intent was to reduce the number of cars darting back and forth across the lanes to finish parking, and therefore to reduce crashes, which he said other tactics including “enforcement” hadn’t reduced.

What enforcement? asked Jesse Lovell of Company. Mitchell said it had been requested; Jesse and Uncle Mike’s Superlicious BBQ co-proprietor Elizabeth Gordon both insisted they had never seen any. In fact, they said, the barrier had brought new problems, especially traffic slowdowns when large trucks bring deliveries, since they can’t park in the middle of the street any more. Mitchell listened to the complaints and said that’s why he had come to the meeting – to find out about the kind of effects they couldn’t plan for. He said he would take the complaints back … but no promises.

NHUAC member Liz Giba voiced a concern about the barrier making the mid-block crosswalk less visible, and raising the chances of a crash.

ALCOHOL MEMO: The King County Sheriff’s Office is pursuing a new idea to crack down on derelict drinking, according to Storefront Deputy BJ Myers. It’s an idea that Chief Deputy Steven Strachan deployed in the Kent area, and is now pursuing in White Center. A memo to three distributors, dated February 10th, is as follows:

The King County Sheriff’s Office is seeking the cooperation of the beverage distribution companies that serve retail businesses in White Center to partner with the Sheriff’s Office in a voluntary restriction on certain alcohol sales practices that contribute to an unsafe neighborhood and poor business environment. Merchants, neighborhood councils, and citizen groups have made it clear that the problem of chronic intoxicated persons in the local business district is a primary concern, and thus, a primary concern of the Sheriff’s Office.

This problem has existed in White Center for years and is viewed as a major hindrance to the success of area businesses. The White Center Chamber of Commerce is one of many groups that has attempted a “Good Neighbor Agreement” program with retailers selling high-gravity alcohol to chronic inebriants, but none of the programs have been successful. Therefore, it is the belief of the Sheriff’s Office that a structured community partnership approach will more appropriately address the problem of chronic public intoxication in White Center.

You are being asked to participate in an alternative to a mandatory government-imposed restriction, such as the Alcohol Impact Areas enforced by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. By working with the Sheriff’s Office to identify and implement a moderate but meaningful restriction on the sale of certain products, your company will set an example of positive, community-focused, cooperation that the neighborhood will notice. The Sheriff’s Office is interested in restricting only products principal to the problem of chronic public intoxication so as to maximize benefit to the neighborhood, including beverage retailers.

As a beverage supplier to retailers that sell high gravity alcohol in White Center, your company can be an influential advocate of responsible business practices. The Sheriff’s Office hopes you will choose to be a part of this effort to encourage voluntarily restricted responsible business practices by White Center retailers.

Deputy Myers asked for NHUAC’s support, and they said “of course.” He says he hopes to go to retailers soon with distributor reps to talk about a ban on “high gravity” sales between 6 am and 1 pm; he stressed repeatedly, this is for retail outlets, not bars. The idea is to disrupt the cycle of how chronic alcoholics buy and consume. If all goes well, this could start by early April.

BURIEN UPDATES, INCLUDING ANNEXATION: City Manager Mike Martin said it’s still looking pretty good for the annexation process to proceed, since the sales-tax credit remains in the current version of the state budget (without it, the city has said it will call the process to a halt). If the budget is finalized with the credit still available, Martin says, he’ll go to the Burien council and ask them to move ahead (which would involve setting an election date). He also talked about newly hired Highline Public Schools Superintendent-to-be Dr. Susan Enfield, saying he was impressed by her and her “intelligent approach” to many of the issues where the city and school district intersect.

(NOTE: That’s the archived video of this afternoon’s meeting – below are notes as we published them during the meeting)
2:25 PM: Happening right now: Click the “play” button to watch live video of the Seattle City Council Economic Resiliency and Regional Relations Committee meeting, which will include a discussion of North Highline annexation status, and whether Seattle should retain or end the remaining unincorporated area’s status as a “potential annexation area.” Here’s the memo council staff has written about the issue, as a briefing for today’s meeting (agenda here). In the public comment period at the start of the meeting, only one person spoke about the annexation issue, North Highline Fire District Commissioner Liz Giba.

3:57 PM UPDATE: The committee is finally getting to the annexation agenda item, two hours into the meeting. City staffer Kenny Pittman is starting with a background briefing on how things have proceeded up till now. Council staffer Rebecca Herzfeld is noting that the recommendation, as per the briefing document linked above, is to leave “Area Y” designated as a potential Seattle annexation area just in case. They do suggest that a letter be sent to Burien reiterating that this does NOT mean they are changing their mind about not standing in the way of their annexation process at this point. “That sounds good to me,” said committee chair Council President Sally Clark – and, with a mention that the full council will talk about the Duwamish Triangle and Sliver by the River on March 5th, the discussion ends after barely 10 minutes.

5:34 PM: We’ve added the archived video from this afternoon’s meeting. (Again, the annexation discussion was at the very end.)

Last year, when a Seattle City Council committee reiterated that it didn’t plan to pursue annexation of White Center (and other parts of mostly north North Highline), even though their city had dibs on the area, and gave Burien their blessing to move forward if desired – which of course Burien did – they also committed to make a once-and-for-all “is Seattle interested, or not?” decision by the end of February 2012. (Here’s our coverage of that meeting from March 2011.)

Now, with February 2012 almost over, an annexation discussion is finally coming back before a Seattle City Council committee. This Friday, 2 pm, the Economic Resiliency and Regional Relations Committee, chaired by Council President Sally Clark, has this item on the agenda:

Annexation Policy-Consideration of Council’s options regarding potential annexation of portions of North Highline, South Park and the Duwamish Triangle.

BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION (20 minutes)

Presenters: Kenny Pittman, Office of Intergovernmental Relations; Rebecca Herzfeld, Council Central Staff

The meeting is at Seattle City Hall, viewable live online via seattlechannel.org. We will be checking with Council President Clark’s office to ask about specifics of the discussion.

12:34 PM UPDATE: According to Dan Nolte from Council President Clark’s office, the entirety of this discussion will be focused on the White Center/Boulevard Park/etc. portion of North Highline – “sliver by the river” and “Delta Marine” will be addressed at a later meeting. Here’s the agenda for Friday.

This was mostly a formality – but nonetheless, it’s a formality worth noting. From the City of Burien’s weekly newsletter, word that the Boundary Review Board finalized its approval of the annexation proposal this week:

Boundary Review Board Gives Annexation Final OK

On Feb. 16, the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County reached a final decision approving Burien’s annexation request of the North Highline. The next step is for the City Council to pass a resolution confirming the Board’s decision and requesting that King County set an election date, which could be in August or November 2012. The City Council is waiting for the state Legislature to approve a state budget before requesting an election. The Council has indicated it will not proceed with the annexation if the current state tax credit that helps cities provide services to newly annexed areas tax credit is reduced or eliminated from the state budget.

We’re checking to find out where that stands.

8 PM TOPLINE: The Boundary Review Board has just given its unanimous preliminary approval to Burien’s proposal to annex most of what’s left of unincorporated North Highline. Final approval wouldn’t come till its meeting next month. But that doesn’t make annexation a reality – Burien would still have to decide to take the matter to voters in the proposed annexation area. Below is how the board’s deliberations unfolded tonight, as the third and final session of its consideration of the matter (the previous two involved public testimony – tonight was only for board questions/deliberations and voting). A major supporter of Burien annexation, North Highline Unincorporated Area Council president Barbara Dobkin, is among those who were here, and she is all smiles, telling WCN, “This is great.”
===========
(as-it-happened earlier coverage, leading to the vote:)
============

7:10 PM: We’re at Cascade Middle School in White Center. The Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County has just begun its third and final session considering Burien’s proposal to annex most of what remains of unincorporated North Highline. No public testimony tonight – just board deliberation.

Executive Secretary Lenora Blauman has just explained that February 16th is when the decision will be finalized; that triggers a 30-day appeal period, during which an appeal can be filed with the Superior Court. Whatever decision they reach tonight will be only preliminary until the rest of the process plays out.

Board member Charles Booth says he considers the presentation at the two previous meetings to have been comprehensive.

Board member Michael Marchand wondered about the finances of the proposal, and how much of a factor they should represent. Nobody else wanted to comment on that. Board chair Mary Lynne Evans brought up the comprehensive plan. “It’s going to be literally impossible to be 100 percent confident in the city’s” (ability to handle it), board member Claudia Hirschey then observed. “I think what’s very dramatic is that Burien is in a better financial position than the county itself,” she noted, particularly when it comes to potentially policing the area – citing testimony from Burien’s police chief that the city would be able to afford more policing of the area than the county. “I think there’s adequate enough information for citizens to vote on regarding annexation to Burien,” she concluded.

Marchand then said he appreciated Burien’s candor regarding the annexation not making sense if the sales-tax credit from the state is not available.

Board member Evangeline Anderson was impressed by testimony from those who were in the first Burien/North Highline annexation.

Marchand noted that the board had been asked to require some conditions but noted that it does not have that power. Board member Sylvia Bushnell followed up by saying she was frustrated that some of the districts did not have relevant agreements in place. Board member Laura Kiselius added some concern on that issue but said she doesn’t feel it needs to be resolved before they make a decision – but wondered about a finding that would ensure the areas not included in the proposal, known as the “sliver by the river” and the Delta Marine area, would still be covered by fire services.

7:22 PM: Board member Paul MacCready asks if it’s possible for them to find out what progress has been made toward agreements. The board’s lawyer, special assistant attorney general Bob Kaufman, says it’s not possible for them to have testimony on that – their decision must be made based on what they already have heard. Marchand says he feels comfortable things will work out on that front.

No one else has any comment to offer – so Hirschey makes a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution in favor of the annexation. “I feel this would complete the area between Burien and the city of Seattle,” she says, adding that she feels Burien annexation would be less disruptive to the unincorporated area’s current library and school service than Seattle annexation would. She adds, “The vast majority of the boundary is a logical service area.”

Evans asks for discussion. MacCready says, to “play devil’s advocate,” since part of White Center is considered to be in Seattle, how does annexing the rest to another city preserve a “natural neighborhood”? He cites testimony that “a third” of WC is believed to be within the Seattle city limits. Hirschey counters that she heard testimony that many in the area are more focused toward Burien. “If we did not annex this area to Burien, some would feel we hadn’t preserved natural neighborhoods.” Anderson then said she only heard one person saying they felt they were part of Seattle – “everybody else said they shopped in Burien, did their entertainment in Burien …”

Marchand jumped in to say it’s not unusual to hear that an annexation area “could go either way” – and “is the glass half full or half empty, is really contingent on how it’s drawn out.” Board member Charles Booth added that he felt he heard there was more affiliation and affinity with Burien than Seattle; Kiselius agreed. “This didn’t just come from individuals within the potential annexation area, but also from individuals within the previously annexed area … and that this annexation would be completing the North Highline community,” resolving “a fragmentation” that some felt occurred when Burien incorporated.

7:36 PM: Board chair Evans goes back to the financial issues, and saying that without the state sales tax credit being guaranteed, “I am worried” (about Burien’s financial stability, potentially post-annexation). Marchand says “the city will ultimately have to find a way” and doubts Burien would be pursuing this if it felt it was potentially ruinous, though he does say the city could have ‘done a better job’ of presenting “how those numbers would pan out,” particularly for questioning citizens.

Anderson says she’s impressed with Burien’s “prudence” in taking on North Highline annexation one bite at a time. She says that helps her have “faith” in its potential; she also remarks on those who said they felt that if the area became part of Seattle, it would seem “swallowed up.”

MacCready asks about the original concept that Seattle would most likely annex this part of North Highline and Burien the part it has since annexed. Blauman clarifies that the entire area was at one point considered a potential annexation area for both – and that led to a process resulting in some agreements and timelines, followed by the developments that led to this, when Seattle said it was OK with Burien pursuing this area too if they wanted to. Anderson recalled testimony from the previous process including people who wanted Burien to annex them at that time too. However, MacCready points out, this proposed annexation area includes more than one community – not just one big area that calls itself North Highline. He wants to make sure it truly qualifies as a “natural neighborhood” as state law spells out.

Kiselius picks up on that, saying that yes, some in the area identify more with the city of Seattle, but more people “who turned out to testify” said they identified with Burien. “No decision will ever make everybody happy.”

7:47 PM: “Ultimately, I’m comfortable with this because it goes to a vote [of the people],” says Hirschey – the board’s decision is not a final verdict on whether the annexation happens or not.

“It’s not uncommon (in annexations) to have factors that basically conflict with each other,” notes Marchand – you’ll have some place where one side of a street is part of city A and the other side is part of city B, “that can happen. … In this case, I do think, based on where Seattle and Burien came to agreement on … it was very compelling, and as board member Hirschey pointed out, it will ultimately go to the people, and for the people to decide, is very important.”

Then they discuss whether to amend the motion or append it, with some recommended conditions. Kiselius proposes “staff be directed to include language in the board’s resolution that the board strongly encourages the city of Burien and the two fire districts and whatever other parties would be appropriate to such an agreement to work very hard to reach an agreement … regarding fire service” for the “sliver by the river” and “Delta Marine” areas. Hirschey accepts the amendment. It’s seconded.

Anderson says she’s worried about writing this in, since “we don’t have any jurisdiction over their making this agreement,” fearing it could lead to some future legal liability. “I like clean motions that don’t leave any stepchildren out in the cold.” Kiselius clarifies she does not intend it to have any legal effect – just “to express a desire that the fire districts work together to resolve this issue.”

Asked for his opinion, Kaufman says the motion “does not give me any heartburn.”

The motion passes to amend the main motion. And it passes unanimously. At 7:58 pm, chair Evans gavels that part of the meeting, and there’s a break before the regular meeting convenes (with business not related to this matter, which now moves on to their February 16th meeting for finalizing).

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:

The Boundary Review Board‘s hearing on Burien’s proposal to annex White Center (and other parts of unincorporated North Highline) will go to a second night tomorrow night. That’s the upshot after more than three hours. 7 pm at Cascade Middle School again. Tonight’s highlights to come.

ADDED 1:15 PM: We are processing our video (which we’ll publish unedited for those interested) covering most all of tonight’s hearing. (Added – here’s the first hour and a half; second one still processing.)

(Added – the second half of the meeting. Both clips are unedited – just the meeting, as it happened)

Meantime, toplines from co-publisher Patrick Sand, who was there for WCN:

MAJOR POINT: Burien city manager Mike Martin said that if the Legislature (which just convened this year’s session) kills the annexation tax credit for cities, Burien will stop right there.

OVERVIEW OF SPEAKERS: Most of the more than two dozen speakers the board heard from tonight voiced opposition to annexation; no one spoke in support until North Highline Unincorporated Area Council president Barbara Dobkin, the 13th speaker. She presented a letter from the council backing annexation. Other supporters included NHUAC member Ron Johnson, speaking as a private citizen, and Burien City Councilmember Jerry Robison. Opponents – including Burien City Councilmembers Lucy Krakowiak and Bob Edgar – cited concerns relating to the consultant’s report that Burien has used to project the cost of annexation, suggesting it was out of date, or too optimistic about the economy. Government reps who spoke, meantime, voiced support for annexation – Burien, King County, North Highline Fire District. For NHFD, Commissioner Liz Giba mentioned a few assurances the district would need, including job retention and pensions, and noted there are close to 200 acres that would remain unincorporated, including the “Sliver by the River,” so the board would need to give direction and seek a resolution of how those areas will be handled. (Seattle leaders have said that they are interested in pursuing annexation of the “sliver.”)

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: They were interested in hearing from a member of the consulting team that put together the aforementioned report; Martin said he would try to make that happen. Also,, they asked what the level of social services would be post-annexation, and they wanted to hear from local law enforcement regarding the crime situation. Again, they’ll reconvene at Cascade tomorrow night, 7 pm.

2:49 PM: Governor Gregoire was scheduled to spend today touring the state to talk about her “supplemental budget” proposal – but canceled most of the stops because of the stormy weather. The exception: She’s scheduled to visit South Seattle Community College in West Seattle this afternoon. One of the budget components of most interest to White Center and vicinity: While the original list of possible budget cuts included potential elimination of the sales-tax credit that helped Burien afford the annexation of part of North Highline, she is now officially proposing cutting the credit by only 10 percent:

Reduce annexation sales tax credit by 10 percent – $1.4 million

Reduces by 10 percent distributions from a tax credit that benefits seven cities in King, Pierce or Snohomish counties. Under the credit, cities that annexed an area with a population of at least 10,000 are allowed to retain 0.2 percent of the state’s sales tax generated in the city to fund the cost of extending city services to the annexed area.

As Burien City Manager Mike Martin told the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council earlier this month, the idea of killing the credit was “no slam dunk.” However, the Legislature will have the final say on the governor’s suggestion – whether they accept, reject, or change it.

ADDED 6:35 PM: During a media Q/A session after the governor’s event with students, we asked what changed her mind about the annexation tax credit. On video, you’ll hear her answer – starting with what cities told her, and what she decided to do instead.

From the City of Burien’s latest newsletter:

The Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County has set the public hearing date on Burien’s proposed annexation of North Highline. The hearing will be held on Jan. 9, and if necessary, Jan. 10, 7 p.m., at Cascade Middle School, 11212 10th Ave. SW. The Boundary Review Board will determine whether to accept the proposal, modify the boundaries, or reject it. The annexation would increase the population of Burien by about 17,300 and add about 3.2 square miles to the City including the White Center area, Top Hat, Beverly Park, Glendale, and portions of Boulevard Park, Riverton Heights and Shorewood.

Boundary Review Board approval would be required before an election could be held in the potential annexation area. If you want a peek into how the meeting is likely to work, take a look at our “as it happened” coverage from a similar meeting held two and a half years ago before Burien’s previous annexation.

In tonight’s election, though the results won’t be final for weeks, some things are clear after just the first round of ballot-counting. White Center’s King County Councilmember Joe McDermott has won election to his first full four-year term, leading Diana Toledo, 67%-32%. … In the North Highline Fire District contest, Liz Giba leads Mark Ufkes, 52%-47% … In the only contest for Highline School Board, incumbent president Sili Savusa is losing to Tyrone Curry, who has gained some fame for his lottery win and subsequent donation, 55% for Curry to 44% for Savusa … Burien had three council races on the ballot, and one of the city’s most outspoken opponents of annexing White Center (and vicinity) has defeated an incumbent: Bob Edgar has 60% of the vote, to 40% for Gordon Shaw. In the other two races, incumbent Lucy Krakowiak - one of two “no” votes on last month’s annexation resolution – leads former North Highline Unincorporated Area Council chair Greg Duff, 64%-36%, while pro-annexation incumbent Jerry Robison leads Debi Wagner, 54%-46%. Next ballot count is due around 4:30 tomorrow afternoon.

As North Highline annexation proceeded these past few years – first with Burien completing annexation of the southern area, now with Burien pursuing annexation of the northern area – one refrain has been repeated: Money from the state tax credit for annexations is vital to their success. But suddenly – there’s a huge question mark over that money’s future availability. Governor Gregoire went public today with a list of potential cuts to balance the state budget, and one of them would kill that credit as of next May. Right now, the governor’s budget doc says, the credit “benefits seven cities” in metro Puget Sound, but killing it would save the state almost $18 million. The governor’s list has an alternative – cut it by half – but there’s a big star right next to the “eliminate it” option – and that means she has “tentatively chosen to include it” in the supplemental budget proposal she’ll send to the Legislature next month.

By Tracy Record
White Center Now editor

City staff says they still have multiple chances to turn back – but for now, the Burien City Council has taken the first official step on the road to annexing White Center and most of the rest of unincorporated North Highline, by approving a resolution declaring their intent to annex the area. The resolution was approved 5-2, with Councilmembers Jack Block Jr. and Lucy Krakowiak the “no” votes.

Most of the councilmembers didn’t speak immediately before the vote to explain why they were pro or con – but of those who did, Deputy Mayor Brian Bennett said he’s “optimistic” about North Highline’s future; Block said that while he didn’t think NH residents would want to be part of a city (Seattle) with (potential) $80 car tabs and “Taj Mahal libraries,” he did think there were issues that need to be resolved – such as, through negotiating with the county “for mitigation” – before proceeding.

The meeting began with a public-comment period that lasted almost 45 minutes, with all but one speaker addressing the “to move forward with annexation or not to move forward with annexation” issue. Our tally of the annexation speakers: 12 opponents, 5 supporters. The opponents all described themselves as Burien residents; four of the supporters were residents of the still-unincorporated area.

One of them was Barbara Dobkin, who spoke as a private citizen but also serves as president of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council. “This is good news,” she smiled after the meeting. “Finally, we have something to start with.”

Though some in Burien had repeatedly expressed opposition by saying “what’s the rush?” Dobkin and others – including some councilmembers – noted that all this has been under discussion for years. New fuel was added to Burien’s fire when Seattle, which originally had dibs on this part of the unincorporated area, declared earlier this year that it wasn’t even going to think about a decision till early next year, so if Burien wanted to proceed, Seattle wouldn’t stand in its way.

We will add highlights and summaries of the commenters’ key points later, plus what happens next in the process, as we continue adding to this story in the hours ahead.

ADDED TUESDAY: Here are the 8 steps required before annexation would become official, as laid out in the approved resolution:

GENERAL PROCESS FOR ANNEXATION BY ELECTION
1. City Council approves a Resolution calling for annexation by election.
2. City staff files a Notice of Intention with the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) and invokes jurisdiction by filing a request for review with the Board.
3. The BRB sets a hearing date, holds a hearing and issues a decision. The BRB can accept the proposal, reduce it by no more than 10% or deny the request.
4. The BRB decision begins a 30-day appeal period (appeals go to Superior Court).
5. City Council indicates to the County Auditor its preferred date for the annexation election.
6. County Council sets the election on the date indicated by the City.
7. The election is held.
8. City Council approves an Ordinance providing for the annexation and establishing its effective date.

Just a reminder for those interested: Tonight’s Burien City Council meeting (7 pm, council chambers in downtown Burien) includes consideration of a resolution indicating intent to annex most of the rest of unincorporated North Highline. However, that doesn’t mean they’ll vote tonight – councilmembers might decide to delay a vote. Here’s our report from last Friday, previewing the resolution. Public comment will be taken, as is the case at most council meetings; if you can’t be there in person, it will be streamed live at burienmedia.org.

The “packet” is out for next Monday night’s potentially pivotal Burien City Council meeting discussion – and maybe a vote – on whether to officially get White Center/Boulevard Park/rest-of-North-Highline annexation off the launch pad.

The resolution is ready to go – Resolution 323, to be specific, and its subtitle is all of the following:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURIEN, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR THE ANNEXATION, BY ELECTION, OF CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BURIEN LYING IN AN AREA EAST AND SOUTH OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES, THEN GENERALLY WEST OF A LINE FOLLOWING 12TH AVENUE S. (IF EXTENDED) BETWEEN S. CAMBRIDGE ST. AND S. 96TH ST., THEN SOUTH OF S. 96TH ST., BETWEEN 12TH AVENUE S. AND SR-99, THEN SOUTH ALONG SR-99 TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA CORPORATE BOUNDARIES, THEN SOUTH ALONG THE CITY OF TUKWILA CORPORATE BOUNDARIES TO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF BURIEN, REFERENCED AS THE NORTH HIGHLINE ANNEXATION AREA.

The text of the resolution calling for annexation ensues. It’s followed by this explanation of how the process would go, if the City Council formally sets it in motion (and their options include rejecting the motion or delaying it, so there’s no guarantee this all will be settled on Monday night):

GENERAL PROCESS FOR ANNEXATION BY ELECTION
1. City Council approves a Resolution calling for annexation by election.
2. City staff files a Notice of Intention with the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) and invokes jurisdiction by filing a request for review with the Board.
3. The BRB sets a hearing date, holds a hearing and issues a decision. The BRB can accept the proposal, reduce it by no more than 10% or deny the request.
4. The BRB decision begins a 30-day appeal period (appeals go to Superior Court).
5. City Council indicates to the County Auditor its preferred date for the annexation election.
6. County Council sets the election on the date indicated by the City.
7. The election is held.
8. City Council approves an Ordinance providing for the annexation and establishing its effective date.

Read the entire motion toward the end of the packet. It is preceded by the traditional cover sheet for packet info, which includes this notation: “The city manager believes that all the significant, material information on the subject has been presented and discussed and encourages the council to adopt the resolution that would advance annexation of the North Highline Area.”

The meeting’s at 7 pm, Burien council chambers, on Monday (October 3rd).

By Tracy Record
White Center Now editor

After three months of intensive discussion about potential annexation of most of the rest of North Highline (as we’ve chronicled here), the Burien City Council is finally on the brink of deciding whether to proceed full speed ahead.

During last night’s two-hour-plus council meeting, they asked staff to prepare a resolution for them to vote on, possibly as soon as next week – a resolution that if passed would indicate their intent to annex.

But that vote was a close one – four councilmembers in favor of having that resolution drawn up, three (Brian Bennett, Lucy Krakowiak, Jack Block Jr.) opposed. The major concern: It’s “premature” — as in, what’s the hurry? General consensus among opponents was that Seattle still has no intent of proceeding toward annexation, having just announced another cut-laden budget plan hours earlier, so Burien doesn’t have to rush into things.

And there was one revelation – if Burien annexes White Center (etc.), its existing marijuana businesses may be out of business, as city leaders said they deny business licenses to those types of establishments now, and would require any businesses in an annexed area to apply for a license.

Council discussion, and the initial vote, followed a public-comment period in which they heard from mostly familiar commenters. Our summaries of those comments, and councilmembers’, ahead: Read the rest of this entry »