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.

King County Prosecutor and local resident Dan Satterberg at the Oct. 21 press conference on the 'Operation Center of Attention' crime bust in White Center.

by Mark Neuman

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg stopped by the B-Town Blog office in Olde Burien for an interview recently, at our invitation.

We covered several topics, including Operation Center of Attention, the future of capital punishment in Washington state, the toughest decisions a prosecutor must make, and even George Harrison and the Beatles.

When we first sat down with Satterberg for an interview a couple of years ago (read it here), he made us laugh summarizing his days playing for the Highline High School football team as a teenager.

“We were a small team, but we were slow,” he recalled.

He got a similar chuckle this time around when we asked:  What advice do you have for anyone planning on committing a crime in King County?

“Go to Pierce County,” was Satterberg’s obviously tongue-in-cheek  response. He continued with a more serious completion of his answer.

“That’s my simple advice. We actually have a good, strong public safety system here even though we have all suffered cuts across the board. But we’re never too busy take one more case.”

Capital punishment and its future
We asked Satterberg to comment on the recent announcement by Oregon governor John Kitzhaber that executions will not happen there as long as Kitzhaber is governor.

“I think the death penalty as the ultimate punishment in Washington state is applied very carefully, obviously very slowly, and it’s also very expensive,” Satterberg told us.

“There are lots of reasons to have a philosophical debate about the morality of it or the effectiveness of it.

“A governor is free to, on an individual case, grant clemency and set aside a death penalty. But you know, the people (of Washington) should have this debate. I think I’d like to see the people vote on it every 10 years: ‘Do you still want to have the death penalty?’”

Holly Washa was murdered in 1991.

Witness to an execution
Satterberg recalled serving as a witness in 2010 in Walla Walla at the execution by lethal injection of Cal Brown, who had tortured, raped and murdered 22-year-old Holly Washa of Burien in 1991.

“I volunteered to be a witness. I wanted to sit with Holly’s family who came out from Nebraska to see that and just kind of be there. We said we’d be there together throughout that whole case. It was a very emotional time for them. But I think there was a sense of relief for them.

“Now they don’t have to worry about Cal Brown anymore. They made a commitment to Holly in their hearts. It (police work, trial and appeal process) went on for 19 years. So you could argue both sides of that.

“It was a relief for them. It was also, you could say, cruel and unusual to put the victim’s family through that much. But at the end, they would have said to you ‘We are glad we don’t have to think about Cal Brown anymore. He got what he deserved.’”

Crime is way down since 1980
“The interesting thing about crime in the state of Washington in the last 30 years is that it’s actually gone down dramatically,” Satterberg told us. “I think the same is true for North Highline and Burien as well.

“The statistics are kind of shocking and I don’t know how to explain it entirely. But it goes like this: since 1980, Part One crimes, meaning murder, rapes, robbery, burglary, car theft (but excluding drug crimes), has gone down 43 percent in the state of Washington.

“At that same time, the public investment in the infrastructure that fights crime, meaning courts, police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, jails and prisons has increased about a hundred and twenty percent.

“I think we’re doing a better job of apprehending people who are ‘in the business’ of crime: serial burglars, serial car thieves, sex offenders and we get them earlier in the process and we send them to prison for longer sentences.”

Visiting lifers in prison
Satterberg, who has served as county prosecutor since the spring of 2007, spent an evening about a year ago with the Concerned Lifers group at the state prison in Monroe.

“I was a guest and I sat in a room with about 40 men who have been sentenced to life in prison,” Satterberg said. “I just really wanted to hear from them about the system, the criminal justice system they were unwilling participants in, and ideas for reform. It was a very, very meaningful night for me. I learned a lot.

“One of the things I learned was that there are a lot of thoughtful people in prison. And there is a lot of talent behind bars who’ve done terrible things, many of whom accept the fact that they took a life or multiple lives and they know they’re not getting out, they don’t deserve to get out but they still want to be able to give back to the community.

Dan greets one of the courthouse companions.

“And one of the things they want to be able to do is to have their stories to be a lesson for young people who are just now dabbling in crime: ‘Don’t do the things that I did that led me this way.’

“So we’re actually working with some of the offenders who have been released, some of the Three Strike Robbery Two defendants who’ve been granted clemency and finding appropriate ways for them to talk to first offenders in the juvenile system.”

Tough and controversial decisions
“One of the great things about being prosecutor is that you have a lot of tough decisions and sometimes they’re internal. Who do I hire? Do I need to let somebody go? We have almost five hundred employees,” Satterberg said.

“I guess the thing that people need to know is that our office is full of really good, smart, caring, dedicated people who at some sacrifice to compensation decided to work for the public, and they love representing the people and they love coming to work and doing the right thing.

“In the last three-and-a-half years we have lost some 50 positions in our office: 36 prosecutors and 15 staff. So I had to make some tough decisions that have really kept me up at night.

“On the professional side we make death penalty decisions regularly and we decide whether we’re going to accept a plea to something less than charged. We evaluate cases and you have to make decisions on a regular basis.”

End of Part One.
Be sure to check back to The B-Town Blog tomorrow for Part Two.

BTB Advertiser Pro Se University wants our Readers to know that they’re offering free 30-minute consultations with Attorney Marie White on Tuesday, Sept. 20th, to discuss family law issues.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Free 30-minute Family Law Consultations.

WHEN: Tuesday, Sept. 20th (appointment necessary – see below for details).

WHERE: Pro Se’s offices are located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

INFO: To sign up for a free 30-minute appointment with Attorney Marie White to discuss your family law issue(s), click here or call 1-877-776-7310.

Pro Se University is located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

by Ralph Nichols

With “non-candidate” Bob Edgar well in front in the primary contest for Burien City Council, as ballots cast in the Aug. 16 primary continue to be counted, local voters want to know:

If Edgar remains in the top two when election results are certified, which appears likely, will his name appear on the November general election ballot since he withdrew as a candidate in June?

If it does, and if he remains a non-candidate but wins the general election contest, will he then be elected to the city council anyway?

The answers are yes, and yes, according to King County Elections, the Secretary of State’s office, the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code.

Left unanswered, however, is whether non-candidate Edgar, if he wins election despite not campaigning, would then decline to be sworn in and not be seated on the new city council.

Or, in the meantime, will he reverse course, now declare himself a candidate after all, and campaign for the office?

Once again, Edgar apparently has little interest in letting Burien voters know what he’s up to. It was The B-Town Blog – not Edgar – who first reported that he had withdrawn as a city council candidate (read that report here).

And Thursday (Aug. 18), Edgar did not respond to repeated voice mails from The B-Town Blog asking for comments.

Currently he has received 44.83 percent of the vote for Position 4. Incumbent City Councilman Gordon Shaw has 38.19 percent, and challenger Joey Martinez has 16.15 percent.

Files, Then Withdraws
Edgar filed for the council seat with King County Elections prior to the June 10 deadline but, in a June 20 letter to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), which monitors campaign financing, said he was withdrawing his name as a candidate.

His letter was sent to the PDC after the statutory deadline for candidates to withdraw and keep their names off the ballot, but before the deadline for filing his initial campaign information with the PDC. Here’s Edgar’s letter:

“I … contacted King County Elections and requested to withdraw from the upcoming election for the Burien City Council position No. 4,” Edgar wrote. “This letter has been written to meet this requirement of your offices.”

King County Elections had advised him to contact the PDC and state “that I would not be seeking office and would not be accepting and spending funds for this election. The PDC, in turn, told him he wouldn’t need to file candidate reporting forms with that agency.

State elections law – RCW 29A.24.131 and WAC 434-215-065 – mandates that because Edgar informed King County Elections he was pulling out of the race only after the June 16 deadline for withdrawal, his name must appear on the primary election ballot and, if he finishes in the top two, the November general election ballot as well.

His name also remains in King County Elections’ online voters’ guide as well as in the printed version:

Despite his attempt to withdraw from the race, Bob Edgar's profile is still in the voter's guide.

Revised Code of Washington 29A.24.131
A candidate may withdraw his or her declaration of candidacy at any time before the close of business on the Thursday following the last day for candidates to file under RCW 29A.24.050 by filing, with the officer with whom the declaration of candidacy was filed, a signed request that his or her name not be printed on the ballot…. The filing officer may permit the withdrawal of a filing for any elected office of a city, town, or special district at the request of the candidate at any time before a primary if the primary ballots for that city, town, or special district have not been ordered.

Washington Administrative Code 434-215-065
Consistent with RCW 29A.24.131, a candidate may withdraw his or her declaration of candidacy at any time before the close of business on the Thursday following the last day for candidates to file. The candidate must file a signed request that his or her name not be printed on the ballot. This request to withdraw must be filed with the officer who accepted the declaration of candidacy and, once filed, cannot be revoked…. The filing officer has discretion to permit the withdrawal of a filing for any elected office of a city, town, or special district at the request of the candidate at any time before a primary if the primary election ballots have not been formatted.

County, State Officials Comment
Therefore, said Kathy Streit, spokeswoman for King County Elections, “legally [Edgar] did not withdraw … candidates have to do it within the withdrawal period….

“So his name went on the primary ballot. If he finishes in the top two, he proceeds on to the general election. If he wins he can elect not to take office. It’s up to him.”

The early deadline for withdrawal is needed “because ballot formatting begins immediately” after that, added Katie Blinn, co-drector of elections with the Secretary of State’s office. “It has to be done by the drop-dead date.”

Blinn also said Edgar’s name, even as a non-candidate, will be on the general election ballot. If he wins, “it is up to him if he wants to take office.” If he declined, that would create a vacancy on the city council.

PDC spokeswoman Lori Anderson said every year a candidate files, then looks at the personal financial information required by her office, and decides to withdraw – but does so after the deadline for withdrawal.

And, continued Anderson, should Edgar – after having given notice he was pulling out of the race – win the general election then decide to take office and be sworn in, “it would be the first time in my 12 years with the PDC” that a candidate in this circumstance chose to be seated.

Should Edgar win the general election, even if he did not solicit, receive or spend campaign funds, and did not campaign for office, PDC “staff would have to decide what to do in that situation,” Anderson said.

It is possible “there could be some infringement [of campaign laws] for not filing [required candidate reports] all along.”

BTB Advertiser Pro Se University wants our Readers to know that they’re offering free 30-minute consultations with Attorney Marie White on Tuesday, July 26th, to discuss family law issues.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Free 30-minute Family Law Consultations.

WHEN: Tuesday, July 26th (appointment necessary – see below for details).

WHERE: Pro Se’s offices are located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

INFO: To sign up for a free 30-minute appointment with Attorney Marie White to discuss your family law issue(s), click here or call 1-877-776-7310.

Pro Se University is located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

A Forum intended to provide information on new rights around Home Foreclosures will be held on Thursday, July 21st from 6 p.m. – 7:30 p.m., and will feature Rep. Tina Orwall of the 33rd Legislative District, who was the prime sponsor of the ‘Foreclosure Fairness Act’ in the House.

This forum will provide key mediation information and how the new law, which takes effect on July 22, will impact homeowners and service providers.

“Did you know about 32,000 foreclosures were filed in Washington State last year? Somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 are anticipated to occur in 2011,” reads a press release.

According to Realty Trac, in May 2011 alone, King County had 831 foreclosure properties filed.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Foreclosure forum provides key mediation information and how the new law, that takes effect on July 22, impacts homeowners and service providers.

WHEN: Thursday, July 21 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.

WHERE: Kent Lutheran Church, located at 336 2nd Ave South in Kent, WA 98032.

Rep. Tina Orwall

INFO: Both homeowners and foreclosure counselors will benefit learning about the new law.

1. What are homeowners’ new rights?
2. What is foreclosure mediation?
3. How does a homeowner request mediation?

Program will include a Q&A session, as well as speakers:

• Rep. Tina Orwall, 33rd Legislative District and prime sponsor of the Foreclosure Fairness Act in the House.
• Bruce Neas, one of the chief negotiators of the Foreclosure Fairness Act and Legal Services Attorney, Columbia Legal Services.

For more information, click here.

Click image to see larger version.

by Ralph Nichols

A lawsuit filed by a long-time area family against the City of Normandy Park and the Cascade Land Conservancy seeks to block removal of bulkheads they say protect their home and property.

The complaint alleges that attempts by the city and the conservation group to remove the bulkheads are based on “dishonest and misleading representations to state and county funding agencies.”

It was filed in King County Superior Court by Brent Carson with GordonDerr – a Seattle law firm that focuses on land use, real estate and environmental law – on behalf of the Hadley family, which has owned their property for more than 70 years.

The case is scheduled for trial before Judge Cheryl Carey at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent in December 2012. Answers from the city and the Cascade Land Conservancy are due July 5. No discovery by attorneys has yet been schedules.

Carson charges that Normandy Park and the conservancy are improperly acquiring at least 26 parcels of property along the Puget Sound shoreline – known as Beaconsfield on the Sound – that impact the Hadley’s home and land.

“A key requirement of both the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King County Conservation Futures programs is that any grant funds used for conservation projects can only be used to acquire property from willing land owners,” he noted in a news release.

But, the complaint contends, the Hadleys are not willing owners.

And, Carson told The B-Town Blog, the conservancy “and the city never communicated to agencies funding the acquisitions” the fact that “the Hadley family owns and has maintained the bulkheads.”

Yet “title reports for the sale of these properties, prepared for [the conservancy], clearly state that the Hadleys are the owners of these bulkheads, and it’s hard to see how [the conservancy] or the City could have missed that,” he added.

Lisa Hadley-Colmenares said in the news release, “This property has been in our family for three generations and we are shocked at the [conservancy] and City’s deceptions to us and to the various public funding agencies.

“Had the public funding agencies been made aware of our position, they might have used these valuable funding resources toward other projects that met their criteria. We absolutely support environmental responsibility, yet not at the expense of putting citizens’ lives at risk.”

Normandy Park City Manager Doug Schulze told The B-Town Blog last week, “I can’t say a whole lot about it.” The city had only recently been served with the lawsuit and “our city attorney is reviewing it and will appear on the city’s behalf.

“I can’t say a whole lot about it” – Normandy Park City Manager Doug Schulze.

“But at this point I have not even received a briefing on what the lawsuit entirely entails,” Schulze said. “Basically it is related to a project the city has been involved in since 2003 or 2004 on an ongoing acquisition” of properties.

“The city had no discussions with the Hadleys of the Colmenares regarding this issue prior to the filing of the suit,” he added. “Had there been discussion, we may have been able to resolve a significant amount of the differences.”

Carson countered, however, that “the city is disingenuous when it says it has not had communication with the Hadleys. The city’s partner in these acquisitions, The Cascade Land Conservancy, communicated frequently with the Hadleys and the city was fully briefed.

He said internal city emails in 2008 “demonstrates that [the conservation group] and the city were fully aware of the Hadley’s intention not to sell.”

Carson added that this April he “communicated directly with Normandy Park City Attorney Jim Haney and general counsel for the conservancy and reiterated the Hadleys’ position. Neither attorney made any further attempts to discuss this matter with the Hadleys.

“Instead, the City continued to press forward with its acquisitions, forcing the Hadleys to take legal action.”

No monetary damages are being sought by the plaintiffs, who, Schulze noted, are looking “to quiet a title and for some prescriptive rights over some property.”

Carson said the owners of the properties in question granted bulkhead easements to the Hadleys in the 1950s, who built approximately 454 feet of concrete bulkheads.

“In the 1980s the City of Normandy Park granted permits to the Hadleys for additional shoreline protection and the Hadleys installed approximately another 371 feet of rock revetments.”

The city and the conservancy allegedly have been using state and King County funds to acquire property on the lower part of the Beaconsfield bluff, just below the Hadley family home.

“To date, over $1.4 million of taxpayer dollars and public funds have been used for the Beaconsfield on the Puget Sound Project,” Carson said.

“In early 2008, the Hadleys unequivocally communicated their decision not to sell their property or permit the removal of the bulkheads, and [the conservancy] informed the Hadleys that they would respect their wishes.”

“Long ago the legislature decided that the public interest is best served when working with the willing property owners,” he noted.

“Despite knowing that the Hadley family owned the bulkheads and were not interested in selling or having their bulkheads removed, the [conservancy] and the city of Normandy Park have represented to funders that acquisition of the properties further down the bluff, known as the ‘piano key,’ would give the city permission to take out the shoreline protection installed to reduce erosion of the hillside below the Hadley property.”

Yet the Cascade Land Conservancy “and the City never communicated the true owners of the bulkheads to Washington state or King County funders.”

BTB Advertiser Pro Se University wants our Readers to know that they’re offering free 30-minute consultations with Attorney Marie White this coming Tuesday, June 21st, to discuss family law issues.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Free 30-minute Family Law Consultations.

WHEN: Tuesday, June 21st (appointment necessary – see below for details).

WHERE: Pro Se’s offices are located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

INFO: To sign up for a free 30-minute appointment with Attorney Marie White to discuss your family law issue(s), click here or call 1-877-776-7310.

BTB Advertiser Pro Se University wants our Readers to know that they’re offering free 30-minute consultations with Attorney Marie White this coming Tuesday, May 24th, to discuss family law issues.

Here are the details:

WHAT: Free 30-minute Family Law Consultations.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 24th (appointment necessary – see below for details).

WHERE: Pro Se’s offices are located at 415 SW 152nd Street in Burien.

INFO: To sign up for a free 30-minute appointment with Attorney Marie White to discuss your family law issue(s), click here or call 1-877-776-7310.

The King County Prosecutor’s Office announced Thursday afternoon that Shavelle M. Lewis pleaded guilty as charged to Vehicular Homicide and Felony Hit and Run for the hit and run death of tow truck driver William A. “Tony” Padilla, of Burien, on I-5 in Seattle on September 24, 2010.

As we previously reported, Padilla was struck and killed by Lewis, who was impaired at the time, while hooking a vehicle up to his tow truck on I-5 near Spokane Street. Padilla, 51, was working for GT Towing in Seattle when he was killed.

Lewis, 21, will face a sentence range of 41 to 54 months in prison when she is sentenced May 20 before Judge Bruce Hilyer at the King County Courthouse.