Preliminary approval of Burien’s request to proceed toward annexation of the northern half of the North Highline Unincorporated Area was approved Monday night at a chilly meeting of the Boundary Review Board.

The voice vote was unanimous and the motion included language urging Burien and the two fire districts that serve the area to come to a decision on how fire service will be conducted if annexation is finally approved.

The preliminary vote of the quasi judicial board in effect orders the board staff to draft up the order and will be finally voted on at a meeting on Feb. 16 at a place and time to be announced later, said Lenora Blauman, board executive secretary.

Then, if the Burien City Council eventually moves to consummate the action, it will seek voter approval of the people living is so-called Area Y. Only voters in the proposed annexation area will be allowed to vote.

Board members spent some time discussing some members’ disappointment that the two fire districts and the city had not come to a decision on how finances and operations would be affected. Board member Sylvia Bushnell that that concerned her and member Laura Kisielius said she was concerned but “we don’t need to resolve the issue.”

The board member Evangeline Anderson said she had been impressed during other annexation procedures how things seem to come together after the Boundary Review Board makes a decision.

“For some reason after we make a decision then they suddenly get serious and make an agreement,” she said.

Although told by its legal adviser that adding a suggestion that the decision be made before the annexation was accomplished would have no legal impact, the board decided to add the word to “spur a decision.”

The other problem discussed was the effect that the Washington Legislature would have if it cancelled a state law that gives cities up to a maximum of $5 million a year in sales tax rebates to help pay annexation costs. That matter is included in potential cuts to balance the state budget.

“The elephant in the room” was whether Burien would have the money to support the annexed area if the money were taken away by lawmakers, said board Chairman Mary Lynne Evans.

The Review Board’s vice chair said he “appreciated the candor if the city on the issue.” At the two hearings earlier, City Manager Mike Martin said he would not recommend and he felt the council would not approved going ahead with the annexation if the sales tax rebate was not available. Anderson said she was impressed with Burien’s prudence on doing the annexation in two pieces and said the city apparently has “done a good job with the first annexation.”

Board member Paul MacCready said he was worried that the annexation might separate neighborhoods but then noted that there were many neighborhoods in the annexation area and suggested that no decision would please everybody. He and others said the preponderance of testimony said people in “Area Y” seemed to identify with Burien.

The meeting will take place where the prior forums were – Cascade Middle School – located at 11212 10th Avenue SW near the Evergreen High campus.

Here’s the rest of the announcement:

Please note, however, that the Board has completed the public hearing in this matter so no further public testimony can be received.

For more information please contact Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary, at 206-296-6800.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

WOW who writes this stuff for the City of Burien website. Currently on the website under annexation of north Highline this statement is made in the last paragraph, “…Financially feasible, and even provide additional resources to the City above the costs of annexation, since Burien would receive up to $5 million a year for ten years …”.

Amazing how wrong our City staff can be! Let me quote Washington state law RCW 82.14.415(6), “All revenues collected under this section SHALL be used SOLELY to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services FOR THE ANNEXATION AREA.”

How does the above quoted state law allow Burien (or any other City) to “provide additional resources to the City ABOVE the costs of annexation”? If the City writer cared to learn more he/she might try reading RCW 82.14.415(7) which further details what the annexing City MUST do with these Sales Tax Credits and what to do if the Credits actually exceed the costs of providing services in the area.

Okay now to give the City staffer a math lesson. It is NOT POSSIBLE for the City of Burien to receive anything near $5 million. Not even possible to receive near $1 million. Why? Because the above state law specifically details the formula upon which any City receives this Tax credit. The credit is based upon the state’s Sales Tax collected in the annexing City not as reported in the BERK Report based upon the City Sales tax.

Manager Mike Martin has already stated that Burien, “has received a total of $584,000 to date to help the city provide services in the NORTH Burien annexed area” referring to the Area X north highline. That amount is nowhere near $5 million as referred to in the website. Even if Burien annexes Area Y and again based upon sales tax formula the City MIGHT be able to get an additional $200,000 since the sales tax would then include those collected in Burien to INCLUDE Area Y (White Center business area). Burien does not have a snowballs chance to collected “up to $5 million” EVER. Note the City of Auburn received its first annexation check in 2008 for $1.25 million. Auburn has a enormous retail and commercial sales tax base compared to Burien. How could anyone speak of getting “up to $5 million” when it not even a remote possibility? Unless it is written to purposefully deceive, such a statement is grossly incompetent.

Who writes this stuff for the City? How could these significant errors get past the City Manager and the Council?

- Chuck Rangel
Burien

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

by Jack Mayne

The second night of testimony to the Boundary Review Board was as much pro-Burien annexation as the first night was anti-annexation, giving a good-sized audience another evening of opinions while again suffering on hard middle school cafeteria seats while straining to hear because of a poor sound system.

The meeting took over three hours again, so the board decided to adjourn to Monday, Jan. 23 at 7 p.m. The meeting place is still unknown.

That meeting will not be for comment by those for or against the northern part of the North Highline Unincorporated Area being annexed by Burien, only for the 10 members of the board (one has recused himself because he lives in the area) to argue between themselves over whether Burien should be allowed to go forward with the second annexation in a bit over two years.

The Monday night group heard the majority of people testify they were opposed to the annexation. Many were Burien residents and most said the city had not made the financial case that the addition of the 3.2 square mile area that is home to about 17,300 people.

Tuesday night most of those testifying lived in or close to Area Y, or the northern half of the former unincorporated area. A rough count showed 20 testifying were for annexation to Burien, and four were opposed.

Time and time again area residents told the board that, in the words of Mercedes Dantona, that White Center “is much better served in Burien; it would add color and interest to Burien.”

Andre Lopez agreed and said he was prompted to come to the second night of hearings because he was told “people of color were not represented at the first meeting and that people of color need social services.”

“If we don’t get annexed by Burien, we will be annexed to Seattle,” he said, adding that he would not like that because government would be far away from area residents.

Some were upset by people Monday night referring to residents of the White Center area as somehow beneath them.

“I kept hearing people who never would set foot in my neighborhood say horrible things about our people,” said Rebecca Lopez, who lives in the proposed annex area.

Person after person talked about how they felt like Burien residents already, how they shop there and pay sales taxes there. Others referred to Seattle government as far away and remote because of distance and because the Seattle City Council met in the daytime when they could not attend meetings, while Burien met at night when they can attend.

“I am afraid if we don’t annex to Burien, we will lose something important,” said Martha Koester, another resident from the area that would be annexed.

Most of the 20 pro-Burien people who testified mentioned not wanting to be a part of Seattle, even a woman who lives north of Roxbury in West Seattle but runs a White Center restaurant. Elizabeth Gordon said Burien would be better and noted that in the past few years, “beautiful things are happening in White Center, people know each other and they are working together” to make a good business area even better.”

A couple of people were definitely in favor of Seattle annexing the area with a woman suggesting needed health care for her family would not be available in Burien.

Burien makes final pitch
City Manager Mike Martin summed up the process of annexation as being “a divisive and emotional issue,” but said the “thoughtful process by the city of Burien was exactly the same as used for the first annexation.”

“During the first annexation, you heard exactly the same arguments against it,” Martin said “and we outperformed those expectations. This was a difficult issue (but) the Council has come to the realization that we can do this.”

On January 9th I attended a Boundary Review Board meeting at Cascade Middle School to listen to people make their cases either for or against a Burien annexation of what is known as “Unincorporated King County Area Y.”  Only one thing was really clear when I left this meeting: I am concerned about how this annexation is being approached.

To be clear right off the bat, I have not decided if I am for or against annexation of North Highline yet and I had hoped that these meetings would help me decide. What I experienced at this meeting was a lot of noise and what I am starting to believe is willful ignorance towards the facts.

Person after person got up at the meeting and talked about how the City of Burien was trying to pull a fast one on everyone or how the BERK report was a scam or incomplete or how we don’t want “those people” or “all that crime” in Burien. What stood out to me was how many of these people had no factual evidence to support their claims and most had no background in what they talking about. I was amazed at how many people spoke with such authority on matters such as finances, city planning, urban development, crime, and the morality of Burien City Council Members when most, if not all of the speakers had no platform or experience from which to speak from with such expertise.

A number of speakers were allowed to speak for longer than 3 minutes because they claimed to represent groups of citizens concerned about annexation. In these extended speeches I heard a number of outright factual errors about finances, education, and crime. The City of Burien and the King County Sheriffs Department have provided plenty of information about these topics on their website but for some reason these speakers “facts” and figures were no where close to what the City of Burien and the King County Sheriffs Department have provided. That tells me that these speakers are either patriotic Americans who are standing up against our deceptive local government or people who don’t care about facts, only care about what they want to be true, and don’t care how much they have to stretch the truth to get what they want. I think the latter is probably the most likely.

One of these speakers, the wife of newly elected Burien City Council Member Bob Edgar, Chestine Edgar, went as far as to claim that the region (Burien and White Center) are “over saturated with libraries.” Mrs. Edgar, I want you to know that I disagree with your support of the two Burien libraries being closed and believe that you are stretching the truth if not outright lying* when speak against annexation.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: We spoke with Ms. Edgar shortly after this letter was published, and she states that she did not make the statement Mr. McCumber quoted her as saying. Also, we encourage future Letter Writers to defer using accusatory, slanderous language.

I was also extremely concerned about Burien City Council Member Lucy Krakowiak’s actions at the meeting last night. When it came to speaking about Burien libraries being closed, she chose to not speak her opinion about the issue as it may be a conflict of interest because she is both a City Council Member and a member of the King County Library Board. Last night Krakowiak showed no hesitation to speak her opinion about annexation. I perceived her actions at the meeting last night to be very hypocritical and again made me wonder if she understands her elected role.

I still do not know if I will support or oppose the annexation of the unincorporated area, but I do know that the decision should be made out of reasonableness and factual evidence.

- Mike McCumber – Burien

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Photo by Scott Schaefer.

by Jack Mayne

Three and a half hours perched on hard middle school benches and listening to overwhelming opposition to annexation of “Area Y” finally caused the 11 member Boundary Review Board Monday night to postpone more testimony and a possible decision until tonight (Jan. 10) at 7 p.m. again at Cascade Middle School.

Only a few of those testifying under oath before the board last night said anything good about taking the northern half of the North Highline Unincorporated Area into the city of Burien. Many of these have made similar comments over the past several months to the Burien City Council, which had made the request for the Boundary Review Board hearing.

“The figures the city uses are exorbitantly high,” said one person, while several demanded better figures and estimates than those in a so-called “discussion draft” report done by Berk and Associates on the annexation which was ordered and paid for by Burien city government.

In an opening statement by the Burien city staff, City Manager Mike Martin repeated a promise he has made before.

“There will be absolutely no annexation if the sales tax credit goes away,” he said at the outset.

He was referring to a sales tax credit created by the Legislature to help cities afford annexation “county islands,” area of unincorporated King County surrounded by incorporated areas.

The Legislature may cut the amount of money or cancel it all together in its attempts to balance the state budget. The answer to that won’t be clear probably until March or even April as the lawmakers just started their scheduled 60-day session.

That sales tax credit could pay Burien up to $5 million per year to help defray added costs of administering the 3.2 square mile area that is home to about 17,300 people.

Boundary Review board members asked Martin what would happen to Burien’s budget in 10 years when the sales tax credit would expire.

“All cities have a structural debt that disappears with time and we think tax income will grow over time to cover the shortfall,” said Martin.

But witness after witness questioned the assumptions in the Berk report, some wondering how a “discussion draft” could not be considered a final and comprehensive report.

“The 2011 Berk Report is inadequate and in no way reflects current costs,” said Chestine Edgar, al longtime opponent of the annexation proposal. “Nothing in Berk shows that annexation would improve the lives of those annexed residents.”

Burien Council member Lucy Krakowiak said the Berk study “is optimistic and we need real numbers.

The city’s police Chief, Scott Kimerer, was asked why a Seattle annexation study said it would take 44 added police officers to patrol the North Highline area while Burien figured only 15 additional officers.

“The crime rate in Area Y and Burien are not that different,” he said and suggested Seattle figured policing on a different scale than Burien would under its contract for services from the King County Sheriff’s Department. Some testifying said there were many more problems than that assessment indicated.

The two fire districts that provide service in Burien and the remaining unincorporated area will need to work out ways to work together, pay their outstanding debts and provide service to the entire newly enlarged area. Some on the Boundary Review Board asked that representative of the fire district come to the Tuesday meeting to outline the problems and possible solutions.

Liz Giba, a commission of the North Highline Fire Department, said she wanted the board to know her department “supports the annexation but we have concerns” and the sharing agreement with the Burien fire district.

“A present agreement (between the two fire districts) combining office staffs allows the district to maintain service and even improve it,” Giba said.

Debi Wagner, who lost her race to be a Burien City Council member, said the “city has drafted a ‘neutral’ conclusion to annexation even though housing values in North Highline have declined 17 percent. She and others think new estimated on the financial feasibility of the annexation need to be done using new, lower property tax assessments.

Robbie Howell noted Seattle’s City Council and mayor have said Seattle cannot afford to annex the area and put off any discussion of annexation until at least next month and probably for longer than that.

“If Seattle cannot can’t afford to annex North Highline, how can Burien, which can barely finance itself?”

The Boundary Review Board will meet again at 7 p.m. tonight (Tuesday, Jan. 10) in the cafeteria at Cascade Middle School. It will hear some additional testimony from citizens, give the Burien city staff time to rebut objections as well as hope to hear views and comments from the fire district, other utility districts and even from a representative from Berk and Associates on their study.

Then the board may make a preliminary decision, which it would finalize at its February meeting. If it approved the Burien annexation request, an election would be held in the unincorporated area either in August or November. If the election approved annexation, that would take place in 2013.

REMINDER: The Washington State Boundary Review Board’s public hearing on the City of Burien’s proposed annexation of North Highline will be held at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 9th at Cascade Middle School, located at 11212 10th Ave SW.

This is an open forum, meant to solicit input from residents in both Burien and the unincorporated North Highline area (aka “Area Y”) up for annexation.

From what we’ve heard, it’s very likely that a second public hearing will be held the following night – Tuesday, Jan. 10, at 7 p.m. – at the same location.

“The Boundary Review Board will determine whether to accept the proposal, modify the boundaries, or reject it,” reads an announcement.

Citizens who want to share their thoughts on annexation – pro or con – are encouraged to attend.

As we’re previously reported, written comments were accepted up until Dec. 23rd.

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.

As many of our Readers probably already know:

• The City of Burien is currently moving forward with the annexation process of the rest of unincorporated North Highline/White Center (aka ‘Area Y’).
• Gov. Gregoire has proposed eliminating the $5 million annual sales tax credit that Burien would receive for annexing the area; this will be voted on in a special legislative session to be held in late November (read our coverage here).
• The annexation process will continue until the city council decides to halt it.

From what we understand, according to state law RCW 36.93.170 (actual text below) there are three standards that an application for annexation is judged on. A city or unincorporated area that wishes to become a city has to provide adequate proof that it can meet these standards. Additionally, it has to provide proof that it can provide services at the current level they exist at should the annexation occur and those services must be in place on the first day of the official annexation. Also, there is a burden of proof that there is adequate monies to support the area and its services for a minimum  of 10 years.

Citizens are encouraged to speak only to these standards and any documents that provide proof that these standards can or cannot be met. These standards will be handed out at the start of the hearing and will be briefly explained.

Here’s the exact wording of RCW 36.93.170:

Factors to be considered by board — Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act.

In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following:

(1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW; comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW; applicable service agreements entered into under chapter 36.115 or 39.34 RCW; applicable interlocal annexation agreements between a county and its cities; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities;

(2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and

(3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.

The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW.

[1997 c 429 § 39; 1989 c 84 § 5; 1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 1; 1967 c 189 § 17.]

Notes:

• Severability — 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
• Severability — 1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100.
• Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.220.

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.

We’ve been following this story very closely, so if you need more in-depth information, read our previous coverage here.

The Washington State Boundary Review Board will be holding a public hearing for Burien’s proposed annexation of North Highline at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 9th at Cascade Middle School, and the deadline to mail in letters is this Friday, Dec. 23rd.

The address is:

Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County
Yesler Building, Room 240
400 Yesler Way
Seattle, WA. 98104

If necessary, a second public hearing will be held Tuesday, Jan. 10, at 7 p.m., at the same location.

“The Boundary Review Board will determine whether to accept the proposal, modify the boundaries, or reject it,” reads an announcement.

Citizens who want to share their thoughts on annexation – pro or con – are encouraged to attend.

Written comments will be accepted prior to the hearing(s), and Friday, Dec. 23rd is the postmark deadline.

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.

We’ve been following this story very closely, so if you need more in-depth information, read our previous coverage here.

Please exercise your fiduciary responsibility before proceeding any further down the road to financial disaster that annexation of Area Y will ensure (see below and attached).

Members of the Burien City Council –

Yesterday, I received a document from the King County Assessor’s Office regarding Area Y/White Center/North Highline.

While it was only a preliminary draft, it shows Area Y as decreasing in taxable land value by $126,295,650 for the year 2012. This is significantly lower than Berk or the City of Burien projected the value of the land to be in the report and the application. Of course, this means less monies coming into Burien should they annex the area. The Assessor’s office anticipates that the Fire District will receive $189,443 dollars less next year to operate in Area Y. Area Y land values dropped by 17% and remember that Berk projected in its report that land values would continue to rise by 2% annually in the area-that is a difference of 19% from the report to the reality of the situation. I am still waiting to hear the approx. amount less of total dollars this will bring in to operate the area in 2012.

You will recall the the Assessor’s office notified Burien that the City will receive approx. $467,000+ less monies to operate the City in 2012 due to the declining land values in Burien-the core area of the City dropped by 8.+% and the newly annexed area dropped by 12 to 17%. Again Berk assumed that values in the city would increase by 2% in Burien.

Clearly, the City will receive a significantly lower amount of revenues than anticipated. The assumptions about revenues in the Berk report draft are no longer valid and will not be valid for a number of years-if ever. This is a point that will be made about the Draft Berk Report and the assumptions for revenues that the report is based upon-to the Boundary Review Board.

Please see attached the document from King County .

Also, I received a letter that clearly states that the Highline School District would receive more monies for the north end schools, if Area Y were to annex to Seattle.

Sincerely
John and Linda Poitras

Here is a screenshot of the spreadsheet referenced in this letter; you can also download a PDF here and an .xls here.

Click image to see larger version.

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Are there two Buriens?

The simple answer is Yes and No. It really depends on the context of how you ask the question. There is certainly a perception of “East” versus “West” of Ambaum Boulevard in Burien, but I won’t be looking at that directly. I wanted to look at this question in regards to the most recent election (November 8th, 2011).

First some asterisks of note. I didn’t split the 34th precincts between east and west of Ambaum. So, in relation to East versus West in the 34th pre-annexation scenario, that hasn’t been analyzed. I also did not include any under-votes (blank), over-votes, or write-in candidates. The vote count per race was not uniform so I totaled the three races and averaged out the vote count.

In the following scenarios, there were no changes in who won the overall election. In this regard, there is only one Burien.

The scenarios are: Voting in the 11th. Voting in the 33rd. Voting in the 34th. North Burien voting. 34th pre-annexation voting. Burien voting removing Pre-annexation 34th. Burien voting removing North Burien.

• There are 22,405 registered voters in Burien. Of those, 11,283 or 50.36% voted.
• There are 7,545 registered voters in the 11th. Of those, 2,703 or 38.82% votes were counted.
• There are 3,285 registered voters in the 33rd. Of those, 1,243 or 37.83% votes were counted.
• There are 11,575 registered voters in the 34th. Of those, 5,589 or 48.28% votes were counted.
• There are about 7,108 North Burien registered voters. Of those, about 2,578 or 36.26% votes were counted.
• There are about 9,353 34th pre-annexation voters. Of those, 4,610 or 49.28% votes were counted.
• There are about 13,052 Burien voters, removing pre-annexation 34th. Of those, about 4,925 or 37.73% votes were counted.
• There are about 15,297 Burien voters, removing North Burien. Of those, about 6,957 or 45.47% votes were counted.

Where one might argue that there is a divided Burien is in how many, in each scenario, vote. First, the 34th district represents a little more than half of Burien’s registered voters. Adding to the argument is that about half of these registered voters voted. Combining the 11th and 33rd legislative districts yields just under half of Burien’s registered voters. Yet, only about one third voted. The theoretical voting power, in a West Versus East of an Ambaum Boulevard scenario, is about equal in Burien. In practice there is a self-imposed difference.

Another view where you might see a divided Burien would be in the race for Position 6 in relation to the 34th pre-annexation vote. All of the other scenarios closely matched the general election numbers. In this scenario, however, Robison defeated Wagner by just 23 votes (2,294 to 2,271 out of 9,353 voters). The rest of Burien elected Robison over Wagner at much higher rates (2819 to 2089 out of 13,052 voters).

Also, the “rest” of Burien (about 60% of registered voters) out-voted the pre-annexation 34th by just 343 total votes.

Some perceive the “West of Ambaum” crowd as noisy, but they also vote. They are about 40% of the city and it is their voice that is heard since they take the time to vote.

Where any politician can get in trouble is representing the interests of the voter, over the interests of the citizens. This slippery slope runs both ways when a politician represents the interests of the citizen over the interests of the voter.

I did this analysis to try and unite our community, and to call attention to our self-imposed inequities in how we vote. I would love it if every citizen voted. It’d be nice to have 100% or near 100% voter turnout. Our representative government works best when everyone participates.

Thank you,
Joey Martinez

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]