White Center Now: The blog about White Center

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.

From WCN contributor Deanie Schwarz at last night’s North Highline Unincorporated Area Council meeting:

ANNEXATION
Last on the agenda, but top of many minds – NHUAC voted unanimously to immediately draft a letter to each Seattle City Council member reaffirming NHUAC’s previous position to support the annexation of Area Y to the city of Burien.

BURIEN CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Mike Martin, Burien City Manager, usually updates NHUAC at its meetings. Annexation was one of his topics: Martin said that the Burien Council is obligated to honor the Memorandum of Understanding with Seattle and therefore will not be taking a position regarding any Boundary Review Board process that might be triggered if Seattle council members vote in the next month to keep the process going. However, he told NHUAC that there are still internal conversations being held within their city hall and that NHUAC and citizens of “Area Y” should not let Burien’s official silence belie the fact that “we are intensely interested.”

Other highlights: Martin recently returned from a trip to Washington, D.C. regarding the Block Grants for 2011. Martin says that he’s never, in 15 years of such trips to D.C., seen the state of confusion regarding the status of Block Grants, which he says have been put into “an 11th hour” jeopardy. These funds may impact work on Puget Sound Park, he notes. He will update the Council as the outcomes of those grant funds becomes known.

Martin also mentioned that Burien is currently in the midst of a Police Status study to evaluate whether the city will continue to contract with outside law enforcement agencies or begin a process to develop the city’s own police department. The study also includes data collection on the feasibility of a new police station, in the event a new department were to be founded.

KING COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
There were no solid or significant trends to observe over the past few months; however, the KCSO rep did note that auto thefts have gone down from 29 to 11 after a particularly active period a few months ago.

There also was a bit of good news regarding the staffing numbers for deputies in King County. The recent annexation in the Kirkland/Juanita area may allow for reallocation for some officers to the North Highline area, though such a determination is neither confirmed nor finalized.

KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
The King County Library System (KCLS) Director, Bill Ptacek, and Jennifer Wiseman, Project Manager/Public Services, addressed the gathering with the most extensive presentation and discussion of the evening.

In 2004, King County voters approved a bond to fund library improvements throughout the entire county service area, as well as build new libraries. While Burien’s library was completed in 2009, funds were also allocated for a new White Center library from the same bond. Also, the housing development at Greenbridge in White Center also recently incorporated a new, though smaller, library.

A North Highline Library Needs Assessment Study is currently being conducted via phone; an online questionnaire went live on March 1 at www.kcls.org/survey. The survey is open to the entire public, does not require a King County Library user number and can be responded to in English or Spanish. The deadline for responses is March 30. The KCLS Board will be considering the results of the survey at its April meeting, when they determine whether to improve the existing libraries or build a new facility.

They also talked about a draft Library Service Area Analysis – you can read the 30-page report online here: The report contains the following Trends & Conclusions of KCLS (page 22):

Key Trends & Conclusions

Usage Trends

Use of the Greenbridge, White Center and Boulevard Park libraries is concentrated to patrons in the immediate neighborhood.
The Burien Library is a destination library that draws people from throughout the area, including South King County and Seattle.
All of the libraries in the area studied, excluding the Kent Library, exceed the System cost per circulated item.
The Southcenter, Burien, Des Moines and Kent libraries are the most effective based on cost per visitor.
The White Center Library draws the greatest number of patrons from Seattle.

Geographic Considerations

There is a high concentration of schools located near the White Center and Burien libraries compared to Boulevard Park Library.
There are three Seattle Public Library (SPL) branches within close proximity to the libraries in the “Highline/Des Moines/SeaTac” FAZ group.
In the event that the remaining unincorporated area is annexed to Seattle, the Seattle Public Library (SPL) has indicated a strong interest in maintaining library services at the Greenbridge Library.
␣ With limited public transportation routes, and only two points at which to cross underneath it, State Route 509 presents a geographical divide in the North Highline community.
␣ Five schools are located in the remaining unincorporated area of North Highline.

Demographic Trends
␣ Growth trends during the past decade are inconsistent with growth projections for the “Highline/Des Moines/SeaTac” FAZ group.
␣ FAZ growth projections of 3.7% to 16.6% in the North Highline area are less significant than King County projections of 19.5% by the year 2020.
␣ The Boulevard Park, White Center and SeaTac FAZs are very similar socio-economically.
␣ The “Highline/Des Moines/SeaTac” FAZ group is considerably more diverse than King County.
␣ There is a significant percentage of population with limited access to vehicles in the area studied.
␣ A significant proportion of the population in the area studied is unemployed.

Library Distribution Conclusions
␣ After accounting for potential growth in the area, the square feet per 1,000 of population in the northern portion of the “Highline/Des Moines/SeaTac” FAZ group is notably higher than the System average, while it is significantly below the System average in the southern portion of the FAZ group.
␣ Determination of the distribution of library facilities and their respective service areas should be made with consideration to topography challenges (including natural and manmade barriers).

Ptacek explained to the gathering, including some members of the White Center Library Guild who together voiced their various concerns regarding the potential combining of the Boulevard Park and White Center libraries, that the goal of the KCLS is to have an equitable distribution of library resources available to the greatest numbers of users.

The KCLS Library Service Area Analysis Policy is described below, taken from their Public Services Manual PDF for the same, dated 2/10:

PURPOSE

The King County Library System (KCLS) maintains and operates library facilities in a prudent and fiscally sound manner and is continually looking for ways to meet public needs while effectively managing public resources. This policy outlines the process for analyzing the distribution of library resources within a particular area to ensure that public resources are applied for the best possible public benefit.

STATEMENT OF POLICY
Declining funding, population shifts, building obsolescence or other reasons may require the Board of Trustees to consider closing and consolidating library facilities. When considering action to alter the distribution of library services, the following will occur:
· The Library Director will keep the Board of Trustees informed of situations that may warrant an analysis of the library service area.
· KCLS staff will conduct a Library Service Area Analysis on an as needed basis, or as part of a regularly scheduled community study.
· Citizen input will be considered through one or more public meetings and/or other methods of collecting input in advance of a final decision by the Board of Trustees.
· Public notice of no less than thirty (30) calendar days will be given prior to a final decision by the Board of Trustees.

Goals

The Library Service Area Analysis process is used to:
· Measure how effectively a redistribution of library resources would meet community need.
· Assess the best configuration of staff and resources to enable the library cluster to provide more programs and services to the community.
· Determine whether operational efficiencies may be gained by consolidating two smaller libraries into a single, comparably sized or larger facility.
· Investigate how the current allocation of library resources compares to the rest of the Library System to ensure an equitable distribution across King County.

Metrics

During a Library Service Area Analysis, the following data will be collected and analyzed (if available):
· Library usage, including traffic, circulation and computer usage
· Library operational and staffing costs
· Socio-economic demographics
· Per capita measures
· Cross-use with other library jurisdictions
· Address of patrons frequenting the facility or facilities
· Size or scale of service in cluster model
· Local transportation routes, especially transit
· Area traffic patterns
· Population centers and growth forecasts
· Proximity to schools and daycares
· Proximity to senior living facilities
· Development in the area, including types of zoning
· City documentation (from similar area studies)
· Local area needs assessments (conducted by other agencies or jurisdictions)

Desired Outcomes

Based on the results of a Library Service Area Analysis, KCLS staff may recommend redistribution of library resources. Such recommendations will be made after considering the extent to which an alteration achieves the following outcomes:
· Results in increased offerings of library programs and services
· Results in increased library use
· More effectively meets community need for library resources
· Provides the community with more sustainable, lower-cost facilities
· Creates operational efficiencies
· Minimizes duplication between two library institutions in the same geographic area
· Optimizes the regional provision of library services
· Positions KCLS for new service opportunities and a greater role in building community
· Provides equitable distribution of library resources across the Library System

DEFINITIONS (if applicable) ·
Redistribution of Library Resources: May include closing or consolidating a library, adding a facility, developing services outside the facility, or reducing the size of or expanding a library.

NHUAC meets on the first Thursday of the month, 7 pm, North Highline Fire District HQ.

(Added 5:39 pm – video of the full council meeting – public comment starts at 2:30, annexation discussion starts at 42:30)
3:07 PM: The Seattle City Council‘s Regional Development and Sustainability Committee has just started its meeting, with North Highline annexation on the agenda. You can watch live at seattlechannel.org (or Channel 21 if you are on the Seattle cable system). The meeting is beginning with public comment; Peggy Weiss is speaking first. She notes that she has been speaking for years about how wonderful White Center is, and she says “It’s even more wonderful now,” listing businesses and development. “White Center is a huge benefit to the city of Seattle … I think we offer the city of Seattle as much as we stand to gain. … Let’s please get this done; let’s put annexation on the ballot in November.”

Brad Truesdell of Malo’s Auto Body is speaking second, in favor of Seattle annexation, as is Weiss. He told the councilmembers that Roxbury makes no sense as a boundary – it’s artificially dividing what is one community.

Speaking third, Lois Schiffer, saying she thinks the “rich depth of services” offered by Seattle, even in financial crunch times, would benefit White Center. “It has been a long, long journey and we are ready for it to come toward the end,” she adds.

Fourth is Gill Loring, saying he’s lived in the area for 13 years, and talking about his involvement in myriad community groups and improvement efforts. He says he feels North Highline would be better served by being part of Burien, “being a large part of a smaller city, rather than a small part of a big city.”

Fifth up is Karen Veloria, who says she has lived in the White Center area for 15 years and is now technically within Burien boundaries, but still favors Seattle annexing what remains. (The speaker after her is commenting on an unrelated subject – the comment period before council committee meetings can be used for any item on the day’s agenda.)

2:20 PM: Kathi Wheeler is next to speak, in an “I (Heart) White Center” t-shirt with a “We (Heart) Seattle” sign. She is speaking emotionally in favor of “Dub-C” joining the city of Seattle, noting she lives there and has a business in South Park but sees no extra burden from the latter.”The city of Seattle needs our strength, and our drive, and our ambition … because we’re awesome. I would like to ask the city of Seattle to join in growing our global village – we’re well worth it.” She is the final person signed up for public comment on the topic – but after another unrelated speaker, Liz Giba2:46 PM: Now on to the annexation-related item. Council President Richard Conlin notes that the question is not whether Seattle will annex NH but whether Seattle will seek an election to ask NH residents if they want to be annexed. He notes there is a fairly tight deadline for them to get the wheels in motion for an election this fall. He says they are deciding whether to take the issue first to the Boundary Review Board, while noting that if they do that, it’s a “fairly strong” signal that they would be intending to pursue an election. Conlin reveals the mayor’s office did send out some official notifications to neighboring cities in the past week or so, which is part of the mandated process. Now council staffer Christa Valles is reviewing the report that estimates what annexation might cost Seattle. “The primary issue is going to be … whether you think this is affordable,” she reiterates.

2:56 PM: Much of this is ground trod during last week’s full-council briefing, which we also covered, in terms of “high end” and “low end” potential costs for the city. Valles notes that the $5 million sales-tax credit from the state is not a sure thing forever, but once the city decides to proceed down the road of annexation, it would be hard to turn back. She also notes that the “low-end” estimates “would provide a comparable level of service to the area, compared to what Seattle is getting … some Seattle residents may feel the level of services they are getting is insufficient, and therefore it might be so for North Highline,” but she wanted to note it would be the comparable level. She also reveals that some departments aren’t agreeing with the “low-end” estimates – such as Seattle Municipal Court, which apparently has sent a letter saying they take issue with the “low-end” estimate of what handling North Highline might cost them.

3:10 PM: The participating councilmembers, by the way, are Conlin, who chairs the committee, plus Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Jean Godden. Valles, meantime, notes that one big question is whether the two cardrooms in the potential annexation area would be grandfathered in, or not. She says she has “heard from several councilmembers that they are not comfortable with allowing the cardrooms to continue.” Upon followup questioning, she says those were conversations she had had “over the years,” not recently. Regarding some one-time expenditures like buying new police vehicles, Conlin asks if there might be a potential way to get the cars that King County Sheriff’s Office would theoretically be not needing if the area were annexed; council staffer Doug Carey says they didn’t get much info from KCSO regarding potential cuts in their ranks if they didn’t have to cover the rest of NH. She also says Steve Cox Memorial Park is not included in potential Seattle Parks operations costs because they’re assuming it might stay part of the King County regional system, but they won’t know for sure until and unless they make “interlocal agreements … on how these things will work out.” She says many departments don’t have much of a “swing” between the high-end and low-end estimates – except “core” departments Fire, Police, and Transportation. For Fire, for example, Valle says, the North Highline station would have to be retrofitted for “gender separation” among other things; that alone, she said, would cost more than $1 million. Carey then noted that on the long term, SFD might want to relocate the station rather than spend a lot of money on it, given that it’s on the far south end of what would be the new city limits; a new station, he said, would cost $13 million.

3:24 PM: On to SPD’s potential costs – Valle says the high-end proposal would be 66 full-time employees, low-end 53 full-time employees (FT equivalent) – 7 of them civilians, 46 sworn officers. Valle says that’s a higher level of service than NH currently gets through the county. Kenny Pittman says right now he understands there may be as few as 2 to 3 deputies in the unincorporated North Highline area; Seattle would have at least 5 or 6, council staff says. Valle notes that 31 miles of arterial would be added to Seattle if it annexed the remaining NH area. “You can’t put it away and assume that it’s not adding more pressure to our backlog of maintenance,” she notes. (Again, this is the report they are reviewing.)

3:34 PM: O’Brien asks how annexation would affect levies. Pittman says it would mean that the amount levied on city residents would drop a bit since the capped levy amount would be spread among more residents. Conlin points out some levies are structured differently and might not have those results. It is then stated that North Highline property tax rates would apparently go down. Would Seattle city services be reduced to existing residents? Depends on how the council and mayor fill the budget gap, is the reply. Councilmember O’Brien says “I’ve been down to White Center a few times and it would be a really good fit for Seattle,” while also acknowledging the big question is where the extra money would come from. And Conlin concludes, “We’ve got two weeks to figure out” what to do next. The committee meets again March 18th.

2 pm tomorrow is when the Seattle City Council Regional Development and Sustainability Committee takes up the North Highline annexation issue, potentially moving Seattle annexation of White Center (and environs) toward a vote this fall. Here’s the agenda; if you don’t have Seattle Channel on your cable (21), you can watch online from anywhere at seattlechannel.org. (Or go to Seattle City Hall – committee meetings begin with a chance for public comment.)