White Center Now: The blog about White Center

Absent public comment – by design – and with only two items on the agenda, last night’s special meeting of the Burien City Council ran just an hour and a quarter. When it was said and done, the council was not officially any closer to a pursue-annexation-or-don’t decision; the only official action taken was to adjourn and to talk about it more next Monday.

Mayor Joan McGilton returned after several weeks away because of surgery. She and the council considered yet more crunched data, including rates for services now provided by special districts, and comparisons of numbers such as what the city had thought the first round of North Highline annexation might cost, vs. what it has really cost, so far.

The numbers seemed to have some councilmembers doing double-takes, particularly in regards to staffing. City Manager Mike Martin had to assure them it really was true that – aside from police – the city had only added one employee (in parks maintenance) to handle the added workload. And no, he had to insist, there is no other shoe waiting to drop, that’s it, they’re really handling it all with the existing workforce, plus that one employee. “It is nothing short of remarkable,” Martin declared.

Everything, however, was taken under advisement; no opinions were voiced or motions made. Annexation is on the agenda again next week, and this time, there will be another chance for public comment – adjacent to the actual agenda item, rather than lumped in with the rest of the public comment at the start of the meeting. And yet more information will be brought to councilmembers as they continue to ponder, including a requested primer on how the sales-tax credit – a key Legislature-approved incentive in the pursuit of annexation – works.

You can watch last night’s meeting in its entirety at your leisure – find the video archived at burienmedia.org.

If you’re tracking the Burien City Council‘s path toward deciding whether to pursue annexation of the unincorporated area of North Highline that includes White Center – you’ll want to either attend or watch (online at burienmedia.org) tonight’s meeting, 7 pm. As this news release notes, no public comment will be taken tonight – different story next Monday. Last week, as reported here, the council said it wasn’t ready yet to set a date to make a decision. The “packet” with info for tonight’s meeting, including a comparison of what newly annexed North Burien has cost the city in the early going, compared to originally projected costs, can be seen here.

At one point a few months back, some observers had wondered whether the Burien City Council was hell-bent on rushing forward with annexation of most of the rest of North Highline, since Seattle had basically said, hey, we’re not even ready to think about this again till next year, so if you want it in the meantime, it’s yours.

Those observers need not have worried.

Going into Monday night’s Burien council meeting, city staff recommended that councilmembers at least set a date for making a decision on whether to pursue annexation.

They didn’t, saying they still need more information and more time.

First, the public comment period was dominated by annexation comments – concerns voiced mostly by Burien residents who have spoken against annexation before; support voiced mostly by North Highline residents who want to be part of Burien.

Later, when the item formally came up on the agenda, councilmembers listened to presentations from reps of the special districts that currently serve the area – and then talked about whether they were ready to take a step toward signaling whether they might proceed or not.

Those who were – like Councilmember Gerald Robison, who quoted what he said was a real-estate-business saying, “If you sleep on it, you’ll never sleep in it” – were not in the majority, so in the end, the council decided to keep fact-finding and keep talking.

(One of those who said moving ahead now feels “premature” was Councilmember Jack Block Jr., who countered Robison’s real-estate saying with, “We’re not buying a house, we’re committing 48,000 residents of Burien .. and the health and welfare and public safety of 17,000 residents of North Highline.”}

So the council asked for more data to be brought to them at an extra council meeting next Monday night, though there were so many questions that City Manager Mike Martin said he would have to get back to them sometime in the next few days regarding how much of the requested data he’d be able to procure.

You can watch the discussion for yourself, since the meeting video’s available online – find it here.

Tonight (Monday 8/22) at 7 at Burien City Hall, it’s the Burien City Council’s special work session about the new report on the potential financial effects of Burien annexing most of what remains of unannexed North Highline. A “discussion draft” is now available online – see it here – accompanied with another report that had been requested both by councilmembers and concerned citizens, comparing the crime rates of Burien and unincorporated North Highline. The meeting’s in council chambers at 4th/152nd in Burien; if you can’t be there, you can watch it live online at burienmedia.org.

7:53 PM: The Burien City Council meeting is still under way right now (live at burienmedia.org), and city manager Mike Martin is offering to take questions about the financial report regarding the potential effects of annexation – starting by saying the report is now posted online. We haven’t read it yet – but you can read it, in its entirety, here.

7:58 PM: Now we’re going through it. Here are the topline findings of the report (each of which is followed, in the report, by elaboration):

Finding #1: The current City has a present-day and structural fiscal challenge

Finding #2: The annexation sales tax credit would cover the City’s incremental cost of annexation

Finding #3: The annexation sales tax credit provides the City with greater flexibility to manage expected future fiscal challenges

Finding #4: Over the long-term, annexation would be a fiscally NEUTRAL proposition to the City

Finding #5: Annexation will bring additional capital facility needs and revenue

We’ll add more as we go through the report.

8:12 PM: Also from the report – it envisions Burien needing to add 37 employees by 2013 if annexation happens in 2012; 23 of those would be police.

Discussing the timetable for moving ahead on discussing the issue, Mayor Joan McGilton bristled at suggestions that the council was “ahead of the citizens” in terms of considering the issue. She recapped the fact that Seattle was given the option to pursue, then tossed the ball back in Burien’s court, and what “forced the issue” to a higher profile was the issue of potential White Center/Boulevard Park county library consolidation.

“I don’t think Seattle is going to annex North Highline, so I think at least the pressure is off in that respect,” said Councilmember Jack Block Jr., advocating slowing down somewhat. Ultimately, the council has just decided to have a study session on August 22nd; the financial report also will be discussed, as planned, at the next council meeting on August 15th.

The information “packet” published online before every Burien City Council meeting is out (see it here) – and while it promises councilmembers that some information will be available regarding the long-awaited report on potential financial implications of annexing “Area Y” (including White Center), it says the report itself will not be ready in time for packet inclusion. So, the advance document offers councilmembers options: City staff can brief them about the report “at a high level” and answer questions, if they want, while they’re promised that staff and consultant Berk and Associates will give them a detailed report at their next scheduled meeting August 15th. The document also suggests they might want to schedule an extra meeting this month, perhaps August 22nd, devoted solely to the annexation topic.

When the Burien City Council meets again next Monday, the prospective annexation of the rest of North Highline, including White Center, is back on the agenda – and the report that’s already in the online “packet” for the meeting includes an early report on the financial analysis, which says so far it’s looking like annexation “is financially viable.” Here’s the entirety of the text:

Annexation of the so-called “area Y” in the North Highline, including White Center, has a long history that council is well aware of. In short, Burien and Seattle in 2009 agreed to bi-furcate the North Highline Area into two areas; “X” in the south and “Y” in the north. Each city agreed it could advance annexations in adjacent areas without opposition until January 2012. Burien successfully annexed area X in 2010 and that area is now part of Burien. In March 2011, Seattle declared it was not interested in advancing an annexation in area Y but adopted a resolution stating it might at a later date, perhaps February 2012. The resolution also allowed Burien to advance an annexation in area Y if it wished.

Staff is working with a private contractor, Berk and Associates, to study the financial viability of annexing area Y. Initial, draft data seems to indicates the annexation is financially viable, largely because of a sales tax credit offered by the state as an incentive. The entire study will be available August 1 and presented to council at its meeting that evening. It will not be available for inclusion in the council packet. Staff intends to offer a high-level summary of the document at that meeting, and will return with the authors at your next council meeting, August 15th for a more detailed discussion.

As mentioned previously, while financial data is central to the question of annexation, staff understands it is not the
exclusive one and that the policy question is more complex. In an effort to anticipate additional areas of interest, staff
continues to solict other lines of questioning council would like us to explore.

The annexation discussion will predictably be iterative and require information to be acquired as talks progress. The intent of this agenda item is simply to continue that discussion and ensure it progresses in as linear a fashion as possible.

You can see this along with the rest of the “packet” by going here (PDF). Next Monday’s meeting is at 7 pm, Burien City Council chambers, 400 SW 152nd.

“So here we are,” Burien city manager Mike Martin began as he opened a quick recap of where the issue of North Highline annexation stood, before tonight’s scheduled Burien City Council discussion.

No council action was taken – they voiced opinions, as you will read below.

First, Martin described Seattle’s recent decision to table annexation till February as a “major departure” from where things had stood previously. That wasn’t the only factor sparking a new Burien council discussion of annexation, however, he said, mentioning the King County Library Board’s discussion of potentially consolidating the White Center and Boulevard Park libraries.

Martin also mentioned commissioning a financial study with an organization that he says does this type of study and already has “a tremendous amount of information about the (prospective) annexation area.” He says the financial data should be available in late July/early August.

Councilmember Gordon Shaw followed up Martin’s briefing by voicing skepticism about the financial viability of annexation, given a previous study, but said he would like to see the study showing the effects of a changing economy, and what he said was apparently a lower population: “I think they’ve lost 3,000 people up there.” He also said he would like to know how it would affect the city overall.

Councilmember Lucy Krakowiak asked what kind of educational outreach is planned for citizens. Martin said “Council will be taking comments at every council meeting they have until they make a decision – identical to last time.” She also wondered if information was available about major developments planned in the potential annexation area.

Councilmember Jack Block, Jr. talked about the difference between the perception and the reality of White Center. “if you take a drive through White Center, there are virtually no empty storefronts – I wish we could say that here in Burien.” He described WC’s “vitality and growth” as “homegrown” and expressed a hope that it would be emulated in Burien.

“If we don’t vote for it, we don’t have control over that area, and the density could increase, crime could increase, a bunch of public housing is put in there because historically that’s how Seattle does things,” Block suggested, worrying about a “spillover … Think about protecting our community. Do we want to have a say in that area, or just let whatever happens, happen up there?”

He noted that Burien has a budget surplus, while King County has been dealing with a budget shortfall, and, in his view, has put unincorporated North Highline problems “on a back burner.” He also voiced concern about county housing projects in the works, and whether they might unduly burden Burien.

Councilmember Gerald Robison pointed out that he has been working on the annexation issue “for a long time” and says “there are a lot of perceptions out there that I don’t think is accurate.” He contended that it’s “simply not true” that the area is made up of a large population of people who require government services. “What they need is good government, and that’s what they’ve been lacking up there,” he contended, adding that he believes Burien could provide that “good government.” He echoed Block’s point that White Center has a lot of thriving businesses, “the kind of independent businesspeople who are exactly what we are talking about in our mission statement.”

But “I won’t even vote for annexation if it means raising taxes on the rest of the residents in Burien,” Robison vowed. And he said he believes it’s important for Burien’s “survival” to take a look at annexing the area if it can be done. The area doesn’t need Burien, he acknowledged, but “if their options are going to Seattle or going to Burien, I think for the sake of Burien and the sake of the people in North Highline, if we can manage it, we should do it.”

Councilmember Rose Clark said she agreed wholeheartedly with Block and Robison. She said she also believes that if there’s a continued effort to “concentrate poverty” in the greater Highline area, it will “break” the community – and she says what happens in White Center (etc.) will affect Burien too. “The only way to address that is to take a good hard look at North Highline and what we can do to mitigate” the concentration of poverty to which she referred. “If all of that (financial analysis) pencils out, we have to look at what that area becomes” with King County services dwindling.

Deputy Mayor Brian Bennett discussed his roots going back generations in the North Highline area, and saying that while that area likely would prefer to be left alone the reality of county and state laws and finances are that, they cannot be left alone – “they’re going to be incorporated somewhere … If Seattle does take over Area Y, what their incentives are going to be in how they treat Area Y , and whether the decisionmakers for that area are going to be impacted by what happens there, or are they going to be in the north side (of the city) and not affected.”

Councilmember Krakowiak then said “This is a big issue before us and it behooves us to take our time.” She said she would be a likely “no” vote if they were voting on it right now.

At the start of the meeting, in a public-comment session that lasted more than half an hour, seven people expressed opposition to or concern about annexation – with a common theme, if Seattle says it can’t afford annexation, how can Burien? – while two familiar White Center community advocates, Liz Giba and Rachael Levine, spoke favorably about it. (We will add details of the comments later.)

As first reported here in our coverage of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council meeting earlier this month, the Burien City Council plans to discuss White Center/etc. annexation during its regular meeting tomorrow (Monday, June 20th) night. NOT a vote, nor an introduction of a resolution – the agenda item is listed as a “general discussion.”

From the supplementary “packet” (which you can find linked from this page) – it’s what Burien City Manager Mike Martin told NHUAC they planned to do – with some new information: A study on the financial viability is under way:

PURPOSE/REQUIRED ACTION:
Staff would like direction regarding the best way to frame the future discussion of annexation.

BACKGROUND:
The annexation of the so-called “area Y” in the North Highline, including White Center, has a long history that council is well aware of. In short, Burien and Seattle in 2009 agreed to bi-furcate the North Highline Area into areas; “X” in the south and “Y” in the north (see attached map). Each city agreed it could advance annexations in adjacent areas without opposition until January 2012. Burien successfully annexed area X in 2010 and that area is now part of Burien. In March 2011, Seattle declared it was not interested in advancing an annexation in area Y but adopted a resolution stating it might at a later date, perhaps February 2012. The resolution also allowed Burien to advance an annexation in area Y if it wished.

Council has long expressed interest in resolving the question of annexation in the North Highline area. Seattle’s recent decision not to annex now and perhaps not in the near future, along with peripheral issues regarding construction of library facilities in Burien or the North Highline area, make it timely for the council to take up that discussion again.

Staff has entered into a contract with Berk and Associates to conduct a study testing the financial viability of annexing area Y. That study is scheduled to be complete no later than August 1. Staff will bring council draft information prior to that date if it is accurate and reliable.

But while that financial data is central to the question of annexation, staff understands it is not the exclusive one. In an effort to anticipate additional areas of interest, staff is soliciting other lines of questioning council would like us to explore.

The annexation discussion will predictably be iterative and require information to be acquired as talks progress. The intent of this agenda item is simply to begin that discussion and ensure it progresses in as linear a fashion as possible.

OPTIONS (Including fiscal impacts): N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Discuss the general question of annexation and give staff direction on issues it wishes to have explored, along with a timeline.
Committee Recommendation: N/A
Advisory Board Recommendation: N/A
Suggested Motion: None required.

You can review the recent history of annexation in our coverage archive here. Among the key recent actions – the Seattle City Council decided in March to put off a final decision on “interested or not interested” until early next year, while saying that if Burien decided to proceed with annexation in the meantime, they wouldn’t object. Tomorrow night’s Burien Council meeting is at 7 pm, 400 SW 152nd; if you can’t be there, you can watch online here.

(Map of potential annexation area – click for larger version, from City of Seattle)
The last time King County convened a meeting between potential parties of interest in North Highline annexation, the process ultimately led to Burien’s annexation of the south part of the area. Now that Seattle has pushed off its final decision, and Burien hasn’t leaped forward immediately to step in, a new round of talks is about to start. Tomorrow, representatives from the cities of Seattle, Burien, and Tukwila, as well as the North Highline Fire District, will sit down for a mediated closed-door meeting in Seattle. Karen Freeman, senior policy analyst on King County Executive Dow Constantine‘s team, says this is something that’s provided for in the complicated process laid out for unincorporated areas becoming part of a city. As she observes, and as anyone watching this process is very well aware, it’s “very complicated … this is the only area in the county that has triple designations” — as a Potential Annexation Area for Burien, Seattle, and Tukwila.

Though Seattle and Burien had an unofficial (since the Seattle council never ratified it) agreement that Seattle would have dibs on the north area until the end of this year, Tukwila is now raising its hand to try to claim part of it – specifically, Freeman says, a small area of mostly industrial land toward the northeastern edge of the Potential Annexation Area. One problem, she says, is that there are no clear boundaries until an annexation process is initiated.

She says it’s hoped the meeting will clarify “what we need to wade through to present residents (of the remaining unincorporated area) with the best options possible.” And during our phone conversation, she referred repeatedly to the unprecedented nature of this situation, with multiple jurisidictions having claims in one area, yet no one moving on a clear path forward toward incorporation. “This has never happened before.” And the state Growth Management Act, while calling for urban services to be provided by cities, not counties, “doesn’t provide any hammers” to force cities to take possession of unincorporated areas.

Freeman describes it ultimately as “a maze of process … (and) no matter which way we go into the hedge, we’ll all wind up staring at each other … It’s clear that in the next year or two, somebody’s going to want to do something (regarding annexation) – or if not, let’s understand more about (why not).” In her view, the area’s residents “are really ready to consider something” in terms of an election. The question is … what … who … and when.

Though the lion’s share of the unincorporated area won’t be directly affected, Freeman says it appears Tukwila “would like to move forward” with annexing that small area in which they’re claiming an interest. She also notes that they did not come to the last round of mediation a few years ago.

The area “needs a good home,” she concluded, saying county leadership is hopeful this might make that possible, even though tomorrow’s meeting is “probably just the beginning of the process.” She also says it was not the result of last week’s Seattle vote to delay a decision, but has been in the works since before that vote.

Another followup to the Seattle City Council vote on North Highline annexation – delaying a final decision on Seattle’s interest, or lack of it, until (no later than) the end of next February – NH Unincorporated Area Council members received a letter from Councilmember Tom Rasmussen (who is a West Seattle resident), replying to their letter saying they are on record against Seattle annexation. NHUAC’s Barbara Dobkin shared the text:

I appreciate you writing to me regarding the potential annexation of White Center (in the North Highline designation) by the City of Seattle. I do not live far from the area proposed to be annexed and I am quite familiar with the neighborhood.

While I find White Center to be a wonderful, vibrant neighborhood, I do not favor moving forward to take the next step to possibly annex the area to Seattle. The reason is because we have huge unmet needs for roads, bridge and other maintenance costs and repairs in Seattle neighborhoods. I cannot justify taking on additional costs for the City which according to the Annexation Report presented to the Council earlier this year, estimated that the operating expenditures could be as high as $16.8 million, and net one-time expenditures could range from $4.7 million – $91.3 million.

Seattle had to make serious budget cuts for this year. Many Seattle neighborhoods, including ones bordering White Center, need sidewalks, drainage and other services, but we do not have sufficient funds to pay for them. Again, in light of the financial costs I did not support a ballot measure for the annexation of North Highline at this time.

Thanks again for writing.

Regards,

Tom Rasmussen
Seattle City Councilmember

Most of the Seattle City Council members keep blog-format websites that they use to expound on various issues. Among them: Council President Richard Conlin, who has said he would like to put Seattle annexation to a vote in unincorporated North Highline, has just written about his thoughts following the Monday vote to delay a final decision till next February.. Among his points:

* Public safety and business development issues are harder to address because Roxbury is an artificial boundary that divides this business district. Policing resources are dramatically less on the south side of Roxbury and southward, putting the safety of Seattle residents at greater risk. Law enforcement in White Center as a whole would be much more effective if it were uniform throughout the neighborhood. Arbor Heights will get better fire service from the North Highline fire station than it currently gets from our Seattle fire station. The many immigrant communities in North Highline will be in the same governmental unit as the other members of their community in Seattle.

* In addition to being another great neighborhood for Seattle, this area has great potential for development and/or redevelopment. The business district could become another Ballard or Lake City, with mixed use buildings and vibrant business activity. …

* We should be clear that none of our residential neighborhoods pay for themselves. If money is our only concern, we should immediately start deannexing many of our neighborhoods. Georgetown, Lake City, Broadview, Beacon Hill, they are all money pits. …

I hope that we do have more certainty in 2012, and that Seattle does move forward with this unique opportunity. We will never know what the people of North Highline want unless we give them the chance to vote on their destiny.

Again, you can read his entire musing here. (Hat tip to contributor Deanie Schwarz for finding it.)

Following up on our Monday report, we had an e-mail exchange with Burien mayor Joan McGilton. Her quote on potential annexation of the rest of North Highline, now that Seattle has said it won’t get in Burien’s way if they want to proceed: “The Burien Council will begin discussions once our staff has a chance to do some preparatory work on the issue.”

(UPDATED 8:10 PM WITH NOTES FROM BURIEN COUNCIL MEETING)

(That’s the archived video of this afternoon’s Seattle Council meeting)
ORIGINAL 2:26 PM REPORT: Live right now at seattlechannel.org – the Seattle City Council is meeting, with the latest version of the annexation resolution on the agenda. This one (see the full text here) would put the council on record as saying they will make a decision whether to proceed with a North Highline annexation vote by the end of February next year, or will withdraw their interest in the area. The resolution is fairly high on the agenda (which you can see here). When introduced, as reported here, the Regional Development and Sustainability committee passed it 2-1 (the no vote was Councilmember Jean Godden).

3 PM UPDATE: The public-comment section at the start of the council meeting was devoted almost entirely to the annexation issue. We don’t have the full list of those who spoke but it was a distinguished list – Burien City Manager Mike Martin spoke briefly, not to take a side but to let the council know he was there in case needed for any questions/information. Fewer opponents than supporters spoke; opponents included Barbara Dobkin and Liz Giba, supporters included Mark Ufkes and son Patrick Ufkes, Karen Veloria, and West Seattle community activist Chas Redmond. (We will add other names when we review the video.)

3:18 PM: The council has just voted to pass the resolution as amended: They say they will make a final decision by the end of next February on whether Seattle would seek an annexation vote – but with a BIG change: If Burien wants to pursue annexation in the meantime, they won’t object or get in their way. More to come.

7:11 PM: We’re watching the Burien Council meeting livestream to see if anything is said about today’s Seattle decision, or annexation in general. County Councilmember Joe McDermott updated the council on a variety of issues and briefly mentioned annexation, but did not mention the specific developments today, only saying he is committed to seeing the rest of North Highline incorporated, one way or another. (You can watch at burienmedia.org.)

8:11 PM: City Manager Mike Martin just briefed Burien councilmembers on this afternoon’s Seattle developments – no additional information; he summarized the move as, “They came just short of encouraging the city of Burien to annex” the rest of North Highline. Councilmembers had no questions; Mayor Joan McGilton said she had seen the news right here on WCN (which as of this writing, is the only neighborhood-news website with coverage). No hint at future action or what’s next; we’ll be following up. You’ll be able to find the archived meeting video on that same link featured above, once it’s over.

The agenda is available for Monday’s Seattle City Council meeting – see it here – including the resolution that passed out of the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee one week ago, after Council President Richard Conlin at the last minute. If passed, it commits the Seattle council to decide by February 28th of next year whether to go ahead with an annexation vote for North Highline, and if the decision is “no,” to withdraw the city’s interest in NH as a “potential annexation area.” Monday’s meeting is at 2 pm at Seattle City Hall. (Here’s our report on last Friday’s committee meeting – including the full meeting on video.)

Side note … next year is a leap year, so the last day in February is actually the 29th …

(Substituted in early evening – archived video of today’s meeting)
1:50 PM: At 2 pm, you’ll be able to click above and watch live Seattle Channel coverage of the Seattle City Council Regional Development and Sustainability Committee discussing items including North Highline annexation. (later note: the video you see above is now the recording of the meeting)

2:47 PM UPDATE: The resolution is now being discussed by the committee. Council President Richard Conlin says he personally feel there are a lot of opportunities and he would like to see it move forward. But he says other issues have come forward. And he reveals that the City of Tukwila has appealed a small part of the annexation area, requiring mediation. He thinks that there’s no way to handle that in time for a fall 2011 vote. He is proposing a substitute resolution. The resolution says the city will decide by February 2012 whether to call for an annexation election. In 2012, the resolution says, we will either decide to proceed or will withdraw this as a potential annexation area. He says he regrets that they are unable to proceed this fall.

Councilmember Jean Godden asks if that would violate the “memorandum of understanding” that they had with other parties including Burien. Mayoral staff member Kenny Pittman says that though the council didn’t approve that, in the spirit of the agreement, Seattle had basically dibs until the end of this year. So technically beginning in the start of 2012, Pittman says, Burien could declare they want to go after it themselves.

Councilmember Mike O’Brien says he’s disappointed they are not at a place today to be able to go ahead to give NH residents a chance to vote. He says he disagrees with what he heard in public comment, that White Center could be a “drain” on the city of Seattle; he feels it would be an asset. On the other hand, O’Brien said, if you want to look at it that way, any neighborhood could be a “drain” on a city, just because that’s the way it works.

Councilmember Godden says she shares the financial concerns that have led Mayor Mike McGinn to oppose proceeding with annexation, and notes that the financial picture got even worse when the state’s new revenue forecast came out last Thursday. “Waiting till next February isn’t going to give us an awful lot of new information,” she says, “I feel it is unfair to keep people in limbo. … I must say that shelving our decision is possibly the least ethical choice.” And yet, she says, “I feel terribly, terribly torn about this” because the financial outlooks regarding annexation effects have conflicted lately.

They vote; Conlin and O’Brien pass the delay-till-Feb. 2012 resolution, Godden votes no. The resolution goes to the full Council on March 28th.

ADDED 4:35 PM: We contacted Burien’s city manager Mike Martin for comment. He said he’s “seeking clarification” on how this affects the situation; he also says he did not have advance warning of the sudden Seattle move to delay rather than vote yay or nay. (We’ll see if this comes up for discussion at next Monday night’s Burien City Council meeting.)

ADDED 5:27 PM: Archived video of today’s meeting in its entirety, added in the video window atop this story.

(Map of potential annexation area – click for larger version, from City of Seattle)
For those following the latest turn along the road to White Center/North Highline being annexed eventually by someone – staying unincorporated is not a long-term option, and no one is currently campaigning to make the area a city all its own – Friday afternoon is the next pivot point. The Seattle City Council’s Regional Development and Sustainability Committee, chaired by Council President Richard Conlin, will likely decide on that day whether to continue down the road toward an annexation vote for the area this fall. The committee agenda is now out and the resolution that will be considered is here. If you can’t get to Friday’s meeting in person, you can watch it live online (2 pm) at seattlechannel.org (or, if you have access to the Seattle cable system, channel 21).

One week from today, the Seattle City Council’s Regional Development and Sustainability Committee takes up North Highline annexation again – with a decision to be made on whether to keep proceeding toward a November election in which residents of the remaining unincorporated area would be asked if they want to become part of Seattle. Today, the White Center Community Development Association – whose executive director Aileen Balahadia helped guide Seattle’s mayor on a WC walking tour two weeks ago – sent the council a letter, and published it on the WCCDA website. Read it in its entirety here. One excerpt:

We now need a municipal partner to fully achieve our vision of a vibrant commercial district connected to safe, residential communities. Whatever city embraces us will be able to tap that already existing blueprint and the human capital and resident leadership ready to carry it out.

In recent discussions, Seattle leaders had indicated that even if a vote is taken this fall, the actual annexation would likely not kick in any earlier than 2013.

(9:39 AM UPDATE: Added link to full text of “lose-lose” handout mentioned below)

We routinely cover the 34th District Democrats‘ meetings, since they are this area’s largest political group and you never know what news might break when that many local leaders and activists gather. Wednesday night, news broke out again; outside The Hall at Fauntleroy, the group’s usual meeting spot, a cluster of people holding NO SEATTLE ANNEXATION signs stood greeting people as they arrived. It was dark and rainy and our photo didn’t turn out well, but the main point of their presence was to make themselves known to Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin, who heads the committee that will decide soon whether to send Seattle annexation to the North Highline ballot. Conlin was at the meeting to talk about the council’s priorities, but was questioned about annexation by both Ivan Weiss of Vashon and Liz Giba of White Center. In the video above, Weiss is concluding his question off-camera – he had begun by listing the range of potential costs of annexation to the Seattle budget – and Giba is seen asking hers, about the future of the White Center and Boulevard Park county library branches, on-camera. Conlin repeatedly said he thinks North Highline should have the right to choose, which seemed to signal he will advocate strongly for going ahead with an election this fall, and also offered that he believes White Center is part of the Seattle community, so should be able to vote on whether to actually become part of Seattle. Meantime, the Seattle-annexation opponents were handing out a flyer headed “Seattle Annexation of North Highline: A Lose-Lose Resolution,” with one side devoted to why they believe it’s a bad idea for Seattle and the other to why they believe it would have negative effects on North Highline – they’ve promised to get us an electronic copy so we can share it with you here.

ADDED 9:39 AM: Here’s the complete flyer.

2:27 PM: We are currently covering an appearance by Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn in the Westwood neighborhood, on behalf of partner site West Seattle Blog, and the annexation issue came up, with a question by Mat McBride, who is chair of the Delridge District Council in eastern West Seattle. The mayor said, “I’m torn … it’s a very difficult issue to deal with.” He says he’s still leaning toward it being difficult for Seattle to afford; McBride said he thinks it would seem “a bargain” a few years down the line.

A man in the room during this community Q&A, identifying himself as a Seattle firefighter who works at Station 37 (southernmost station) and formerly worked for the North Highline Fire District, says that annexation would have one benefit for the Arbor Heights area, which he says would be more accessible from the current NH station. (We have been recording video of this meeting and will add the clip of this exchange here later – we’re putting up the entire Q&A session on WSB.) Again, in case you lost track, the next scheduled city of Seattle discussion on potential annexation is the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee meeting on March 18.

ADDED 5:19 PM: Video of the entire exchange is now atop this story.