by Ralph Nichols

Burien’s recently completed asphalt overlay project ended with an estimated cost overrun of about $500,000.

And, City Manager Mike Martin told The B-Town Blog Monday (Aug. 15), “We should have known” about the cost overrun while work was still in progress.

Although Martin is up the ladder when it comes to monitoring project costs – construction management is on the ground; next is in-house staff management – he made no excuses for this lapse.

“The buck stops with me,” Martin said. “The fact of the matter is I should have known and I didn’t. It was sloppy project management. These were my employees.”

But, he added, the city became aware of the cost overrun “when we started closing the books on the project” – including final billings from contractors – “about two weeks” before receiving a letter complaining about excessive costs was sent to the city.

“We were already working on this by then,” Martin said.

A project engineer with the city, directly involved in management of the asphalt overlays, is no longer employed by Burien – “a personnel matter that I can’t get into at this time,” he noted.

Tucci & Sons of Tacoma was general contractor for the first phase of the project, which involved placing a two-inch asphalt overlay on several major streets, along with “related improvements.”

Asphalt overlays were made on Ambaum Blvd. between SW 112th and SW 156th streets, 4th Ave. SW between SW 154th and 156th streets, S/SW 128th St. between Des Moines Memorial Drive and Ambaum, and SW 148th St. between Ambaum and 4th Ave. SW.

Phase two of city pavement improvements, also approved by the city council last year and funded in part by a $10 car license tab fee, is maintenance of more than 260 lane miles of city streets over the next 18 years.

Total cost of the 20-year asphalt overlay and street maintenance program is $19.4 million.

Complaint about Asphalt Overlay Project
John H. O’Brien of Burien, the engineer who sent the letter of complaint about management of phase one of this project to the city council, said funding “was supposed to only be used to improve the pavement condition of local streets.”

Yet storm drainage and sidewalk work was done with these funds on both Ambaum and S/SW 128th, O’Brien claimed. Even so, the new sidewalks were built below minimum safety standards, he said.

City public works personnel made it known, however, as work began last fall, that needed storm drainage improvements and sidewalk replacement would precede the asphalt overlays on those streets.

“The only positive thing that I can say concerning this project is that the quality of work on the surface appears to be better than the completed work on First Avenue South, phase I, and Town Square,” O’Brien concluded.

O’Brien was a project engineer for Burien on the troubled 1st Ave. S. Project, and left city employment at about that time. Martin also declined to discuss this personnel matter.

The City Responds
“As you are aware from your own work with the City of Burien, we continually monitor and inspect projects like this for compliance and relevant construction standards,” Burien Public Works Director Larry Blanchard said in a responding letter to O’Brien.

“That’s the case with this project as well, and we disagree with your assessment of project deficiencies.”

Martin was more specific, telling The B-Town Blog the city was required by the federal government to meet more stringent standards for sidewalk and related improvements on the 1st Ave. S. Project because federal funds were involved.

On the other hand, sidewalk improvements made as part of the asphalt overlay program were paid for with local funds. But “absolutely yes, these sidewalks were built to adequate standards.”

He noted that federal projects cost 30-40 percent more because federal funds bring federal requirements.

Poor management and improper use of funds resulted in a $2.35 million cost overrun, O’Brien also said.

Blanchard replied that the city is “in the process of closing the project and will have the final budget figures when we do. It is likely that unexpected field conditions among other issues are instrumental in placing the project over budget, but not close to the order of magnitude you suggest.”

Martin said he is taking steps to insure that such a cost overrun doesn’t occur in the future.

This likely includes retaining a firm he’s worked with in the past “to conduct an organizational assessment of the Public Works Department, and find ways to change both or organization and the way we handle projects.”

Here’s the main part of O’Brien’s letter, which is included in Monday’s Burien City Council packet (you can also download a PDF of just the letter here):

Dear Council Members:

For close to year I having been reading with interest the B-Town Blog and city’s construction updates concerning the completion of the work by Tucci and Sons Construction Company in doing city street overlays and what was supposed to be minor sidewalk and drainage repair work. This work authorized by the council and was paid for through the issuance of a $8.7 million bond issue. The bond was suppose to only be used to improve the pavement condition of local streets with the current Tucci Project being the first of several during 2010 and 2011. This promised work was going to ensure that local arterial streets are pothole free well into the future. Instead of a pavement restoration project what I have watched for the last year seems to be more of a drainage and sidewalk replacement project of two roadways, 128th and Ambaum Blvd..,. Instead of the promised project we the taxpayers ended up with a project that:

• Doesn’t allow the bond issue to live up to the promised 2010-2011overlay program, shown in Exhibit ‘A’ or a project that restores ten (10) city streets. Instead a significantly reduced amount of work will be completed with the proposed deletion of $1.35 million of work under the current project that will reduce by half the number of streets to be repaired by the current project.
• Has resulted in major cost overruns of more than $2.35 million on a $7.39 million contract, at the time of my public records request. and work is still ongoing and overruns are likely to get larger. Either the project was very poorly planned during design or poorly managed during construction. In either case the taxpayers of the city are not getting what was promised in the bond issue and during a period of low city income that threatens city programs. More on this subject later.
• Resulted in major public inconvenience due to lack of adequate traffic control which didn’t comply with state adopted Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) work zone traffic control standards and resulted in disjointed sidewalks that didn’t provide for pedestrian passage or comply with American with Disability Act (ADA) guidelines for pedestrian passage through work zones. This lack of maintaining adequate safety was well documented in multiple letters and complaints filled in the B-town Blog and to based on those reports to city staff. Still nothing was apparently done or is being done in the final stages of the project to correct the problem. I will not dwell on the subject, but there appears to be a general lack of concern about public safety and public liability, in the public works department, connected with work constructed on city streets. This is based not only on this project and but on my own recent experience with city staff when I was nearly in a accident due to unsafe construction activities where the city employee responsible for overseeing the work seemed to condone the unsafe construction traffic control enforcement and other work in the city that fails to meet accepted standards. A copy of my previous correspondence on the issue is attached as Exhibit ‘B’. Needless to say, I didn’t think another compliant, by me, would make this safety concern a staff priority!
• Failed to correct sidewalk ADA deficiencies and in fact replaced facilities with new non-compliant ones and left noncompliant ones immediately adjoining new compliant ones. At a minimum all crosswalks ramps along all overlaid streets were required to meet ADA standards and to connect to ADA complainant ramps were pedestrian facilities are present. This is based on local agency guidelines published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). for project that are minor pavement overlay projects. For all other projects fully ADA compliant facilities are required where they can be provided.    Based on the completed work on at least Ambaum and S/SW 128th Streets these roadway should have resulted in fully compliant ADA passable sidewalks. Instead sidewalk were left that don’t comply and were in fact were replaced with sidewalks that don’t meet ADA standards by:
• Not providing ADA compliant ramps at all intersections. Facilities were actually reconstructed with non-ADA compliant ramps and old sytle one sleft at multiple locations in which ADA compliant facilities could have been easily constructed. o    Not providing a minimum 3-foot minimum width plus one foot clear zone from obstructions in numerous locations on 128th and Ambaum. As shown in Figure 2 easily moved utility poles reduce the width to below these standard that could have been move to meet ADA standards but also clear zone traffic standards that place poles no closer than eighteen (18) inches from the face of curb not in the curb. These utility relocations would have been completed at the expense of the utilities performing the work under city franchise agreements.
• Not having a maximum sidewalk cross slopes of 2%. This includes at driveway openings where existing non-standard ramps were left or only partially replaced or replaced with ones with slopes of greater than 2%. And not eliminated sidewalks that have adjoining panels of different heights. I was surprise to see whole blocks of marginally acceptable sidewalks replaced while whole sections that were in worst shape remain.
• It is hard to understand why the previously consultant recommended mid-block refuge island just north of SW 134th St. was not replaced, the island was installed to decrease the crossing distance of the street, in an area where pedestrians cannot see approaching traffic . This item along with directional crosswalks and “Use crosswalk” regulatory signing were installed ( that are also now missing) to direct pedestrians to safe crosswalk locations following pedestrian fatalities on Ambaum. The accidents were mainly the result of jaywalking in areas of close proximity to signalized crossing. These items improve safety and should be replaced.

As for the cost overruns, I was surprised when I read that major work had been completed on the project given that proposed improvements included work on SW 152nd, Maplewild, 160th and other streets had not been started. As a result of reading this, I searched the Burien website for information on why they were not being completed and didn’t find any information of the subject. This search included going though the last six (6) months of council agendas looking for council items on change orders or other proposed discussion on the subject. Based on this I concluded that this is something the city doesn’t want taxpayers to know and resulted in my Washington Open records request for the project bid tabs, current pay estimates and change orders for the project.

My request which involved readily available information that should have taken no more than a few minutes to prepare (they are items that are to be maintained by the project manager) took more than 3 weeks to receive and were only received after notifying city staff that I had not relieved that materials after a second promised delivery date was missed. Copies of the correspondence concerning the public records request are attached as Exhibit ‘C’, the materials received are included in Exhibit ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’, a disk providing the original electronic files is also provided for your reference.

Some of the materials that I received were basically illegible and clearly indicate that most the r items were put together only after receiving my request of June 22, 2011. The change orders are redraft in nature and technically not subject to my request since there are unsigned change orders. But the fact is I did receive them and this only added to my impression of the current mismanagement at the city. As for them being prepared following my request, it is easy to see that that the materials are dated weeks after my request. This includes the pay estimate dated July 7, 2011 and all the non approved change orders. 2-4, which reference this pay estimate. The final cost in the city provided documents would have been known until the pay estimate was approved by the contractor. This would indicate that the only cost overrun that may have been brought to the council attention at the time of my request was for a relatively small change order, in the scope of the cost overruns; Change Order 1, for the replacement of trees is in the amount of $195,742. But as stated I was unable to find any reference in the council agenda’s for the project and it was not executed by the City Manger as of July 20, 2011. So it would seem that even the council was not aware of the scope of the problem, unless it was being discuss in private session in violation of open meeting requirements. It should also be noted that I only received partial payment information for Bid Schedules A, D and E that are not proposes for deletion, It is hard to believe that no costs have been occurred on the other shedules as of the July 7, 2011 pay estimate since the contractor was entitled to partial mobilization costs on these segments following arriving of site.

What I have been able to determine from the materials provided is:

• A significant change in scope occurred on the project that lead to a $2.35 million cost overruns that included significant increases in the amount of drainage, sidewalk, curb and gutter, property restoration and signal interconnect work that should have been known to be completed prior to the project going to bid. Wasn’t an adequate coordination none with other city employees or county staff to know the problems and wasn’t a walk though of the project done prior to the project being bid? Staff and the consultant hired to design the project should have known to within a few percent what curb and gutter and sidewalk needed to be replaced and know most of the drainage and signal work that had to be done. The quantities of these bid items more than doubled from the original quantities and were completed at much higher bid prices than those that were originally bid! I would also like to know where the change order is for these new prices that are shown in the pay estimates. Changes in prices require a change order and are not just given for the sake of appeasing a contractor!
• That the use of generally more expensive force account work was used for new drainage work and signal work added to the contract that could have been negotiated with the contractor at unit prices at a reduced cost. The city paid to have equipment sit around on site well this work was being done under force account when it could have been doing other work while prices were negotiated. As far as I could tell walking and driving the roadways, on a daily basis, little or any of this work was an emergency considering the roadways were reduced to two lanes that already restricted traffic. ?    That attention to following the contractual requirements found in the project special provisions and the Washington State Standard Specifications were ignored by all levels of city staff. This is evidenced by the lack of executed change orders, changes in unit prices without change orders, and the unofficial working day extension based on the length of time work has been ongoing easily exceeding the number of working days provided in the contract.
• That the whole management structure was aware of the problems and did nothing to correct them considering that the problem didn’t happen overnight.

As far back as Pay Estimate 4, which are reviewed and approved by the city manager and public work director changes already had occurred on the project that required council action to address and to date of by request had not addressed by council.    Where were the city manager and public works director in overseeing the project and ensuring that city rules and state purchasing guidelines being followed? Mismanagement of this scale resulted in the resignation of the Seattle School Superintendent in a much larger organization were daily activities were less likely to be known.

Again, I cannot believe the project mismanagement at all levels that would have resulted in $2.35 million dollars of cost overruns on a $7.39 million project that would not have been addressed without required council action and apparently took a public records request to even begin. Surely all levels of management are responsible and the tax payers did not get what they were promised in the bond issue good roads for the future.

The only positive thing that I say concerning this project is that quality of work on the surface appears to be better than the completed work on 1st Avenue South, Phase I and Town Square. But only time will tell about the true quality.

I look forward to your response on what is going to be done to address this mismanagement at all levels. If you have any questions please write to me at my home address or email me at klunky@ix.netcom.com.

Thank-you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
John H. O’Brien, Jr.

For almost one and a half years, the Burien City Manager (Mike Martin) has been publicly insisting that Burien can afford to annex White Center/Area Y. As a matter of fact, he made such statements prior to the official annexation of Area X. Never has he been able to produce an independent analysis to support this claim, but he has repeatedly tried to push the City Council to annex White Center/Area Y without any written analysis.

Seattle has produced two reports (2010-PDF file, 2011) that clearly show this is not an economically-feasible issue for Seattle at this point in time, because White Center costs far more money to manage that it brings in. Also, King County can no longer afford to run White Center. Mr. Martin’s argument has been that Burien can do things cheaper that Seattle. His position is that, generally, the staff in Seattle knows nothing about running a city economically. Burien can run outside contract services in White Center to reduce the costs that Seattle has projected in its report. There are three things wrong with Mr. Martin’s argument about how he can annex White Center on the cheap:

1. Seattle already runs its city services at a lower cost than Burien runs its city support services at. The tax rate for Seattle and all of is services is 9.65. The tax rate for Burien is 12.92. And if you consider the new vehicle tax as part of Burien’s overall taxes, the Burien tax rate is probably 13+. This means that citizens are paying more for services in Burien and getting a lower level of service than citizens in Seattle.
2. Burien cannot run White Center on outside contract services cheaper. Repeatedly at City Council meetings, Mr. Martin has stated that police services cost too much in Burien because they are outside contract services. That is the reason that he has stated that he wants to have Burien create its own in-house police department. Also, the City of Burien changed its Public Works Services to in-house services this year. The reason for this change was that Mr. Martin felt that in-house services could be run cheaper than contract services. Mr. Martin knows that outside contract services cost more that in house services.
3. The current outside contract services that Burien uses will have to significantly increase in cost per year to deal with the crime rate in White Center. While the King County Sheriff’s office has not posted the stats on crime in White Center/Area Y, the 2010 Seattle report stated that crime was significantly higher in White Center than in comparable neighborhoods in Seattle. In Seattle neighborhoods where there were 60 to 65 burglaries and property crimes, there were 241 in the White Center area; 15 to 30 vehicle thefts were reported in comparable Seattle neighborhoods while 156 were reported in the White Center area. The outside contact King County Police services that Burien uses cost more than Seattle’s in house police services.

Further, Mr. Martin has suggested that maybe Burien could annex White Center but not bring its infrastructure up to the level that Seattle is promising to. Maybe Burien would not even bring White Center up to the level that the rest of Burien currently has. The problems with this argument are:

1. White Center has severe infrastructure problems with its roads, storm drainage systems and facilities for its needed services. Seattle projected that White Center is $77 million dollars deficit in deferred infrastructure repair. Even if Burien only did two thirds of the repairs needed in the area, White Center would have used up more monies that are being provided by the $50 million dollars ($5 million dollars for 10 years) in the sales taxes being offered by King County without having sufficient monies to then run the area annually.
2. The White Center area costs more to run annually than the extra $5 million dollars in sales tax per year (without repairing the infrastructure) than is being offered by King County. Seattle projects White Center will costs $12.6 million dollars in excess to be run annually-without considering any repairs to the infrastructure. King County is trying to dump White Center because of how much more it costs to run annually as compared to what it brings in-in tax revenue. A whole county cannot afford this area but Burien can? Plainly stated, the citizens of White Center are not going to be content to pay more in taxes to Burien and have a lower quality of infrastructure or annual city services than the rest of the citizens in Burien. They will not be content to be treated like second class citizens.
3. Once the 10 year monies from the sales tax credit infusion run out, there is no reliable income source to run White Center from other than to raise taxes for all of Burien. Burien is one of the most expensive cities in King County for taxes. It is always in top 5 highest tax cities in King County to live and do business in. Annexing White Center will require that Burien raise its taxes. To further raise taxes in a city that provides a lower level of service than Seattle, makes it an undesirable city to set up a business in or to buy a home in. This means that needed monies to improve the infrastructure or support the city will not be readily flow into Burien from new business or real estate.

Mr. Martin and the city staff always agree to prepare reports for the City Council and the citizens/public that are never produced. Some specific examples are the written reports that we have never seen on the Annexation of Area X, the written analysis of how Area X is going to be funded after the sales tax credits run out, City Council budget work sessions that never happen, reports on animal control services that never quite make it into the City Council packets, annual budget displays that are never ready for the public comment period, models and maps for land use in the city that can never be explained, explanations of how long the vehicle tax is going to last, proposals that come up for public comment and City Council vote but never have any financial analysis attached for the public to see, etc.

Every thinking citizen in Burien as well as White Center should be concerned about this issue of annexation. Seattle has been a city far longer than Burien and has managed budgets for a far longer period in time. Seattle has been fairly consistent in retaining the people in its finance department. Burien has had 3 Finance Directors in 3 years. Who even knows what is going on with the budget and what Burien can and cannot afford? As one Seattle City council member stated after looking at the reports prepared by Seattle on the topic of annexing White Center, “The facts and figures on this area simply do not pencil out, that’s why we turned it down for now.”

It is time to put away the smoke and mirrors. It is time that the mayor stop scolding and criticizing every citizen that stands up and asks for the facts at a City Council meeting. It is time for the City Manager to stop using propaganda to advance his agenda to annex White Center/Area Y. Show the citizens the written budget report on Area X and how it will be funded after the tax credits run out and the financial analysis on the White Center/Area Y before any additional annexations are considered by Burien.

- Bob Edgar
Candidate for Burien City Council Pos. #4

[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.]

by Ralph Nichols

Saying this is “something we’ve been expecting for quite a long time,” Burien City Manager Mike Martin said Thursday (Oct. 28) called a pending trustee’s sale of Urban Partners’ Town Square complex “a good thing.”

ST Residential, which holds the construction loan for the six-story condominium/retail building, announced on Oct. 27 ”the Burien Town Square property is scheduled to be sold pursuant to a trustee’s sale on Friday.”

The sale “moves the ball down the field,” Martin told The B-Town Blog. It signals “progress that in the not-to-distance future we will be seeing condos sold.”

But, he emphasized, this will not happen immediately. Nor does it ”signal a change in the economic environment. We’re still in the doldrums. So the conditions that have been troublesome for this project still exist.”

Those problems, Martin added, are ”not unique” to the Urban Partners’ development or to this area. “It’s all over the real estate market.”

Following the trustee’s sale, whoever takes ownership of the nearly vacant complex – the only privately owned building in Town Square – will first have to determine how to structure the prices for both condos and retail space, he noted.

Martin again underscored the fact that “no public money is involved in this private development. Burien taxpayers are not on the hook.”

Paul Keller, managing partner of Urban Partners, the private developer of Town Square, said Thursday morning that he will issue a statement in a news release this afternoon.

The foreclosure will affect the 118 unoccupied condos, as well as ground-floor retail space.

Urban Partners had been negotiating with ST Residential to retain ownership of the complex and for new repayment terms that reflect the current housing market.

Peter Marino, spokesman for ST Residential, said in Wednesday’s statement, “We are working with Urban Partners and, in the event an ST Residential affiliate is the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale, we expect to retain Urban Partners to manage the property to ensure a smooth ownership transition for the project and the existing unit-owners.”

Urban Partners financed construction of the six-story Town Square complex with a $38.5 million construction loan from Corus Bank of Chicago.

But the bank, a major construction lender, was closed and its assets seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on Sept. 11, 2009 – just three months after the building opened.

The nation’s housing market collapsed about a year before Corus Bank failed and only eight months before the complex opened at the same time as the new Burien Library/City Hall building and Town Square Park.

ST Residential – an investment group formed by the FDIC, which retained a 60 percent interest in the Corus construction-loan portfolio, Starwood Capital Group and four other private investors – acquired Urban Partners’ Town Square project loan.

With negotiations between Urban Partners and ST Residential – initiated shortly after the failure of Corus Bank – moving slowly, a legal notice of foreclosure was filed on July 26.

If Urban Partners did not make a past-due payment of $3.5 million by Sept. 1, according to that notice, the Town Square complex would go into foreclosure.

Urban Partners still owes approximately $34.8 million on its loan from Corus Bank. Foreclosure will affect the 118 unoccupied condos that have not been sold, as well as ground-floor retail space and parking.

Six condos sold last year will not be impacted.

Urban Partners remains the private developer for the rest of the Town Square project, Martin said. “But the rest of the plan is up in the air. More condos would not work there, at least not in the short term.”

The possibility of locating a multiplex cinema in Town Square remains under discussion, but there has been no council agreement to date for Urban Partners to move in that direction.

by Ralph Nichols

Signs around town declare it in several languages. But at last week’s meeting of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council, Burien City Manager Mike Martin kept the greeting simple.

“Welcome,” Martin said to the new residents of North Burien. Until that morning (April 1), their address had been in unincorporated King County. “We’re just thrilled” this has finally happened.

Noting the first steps toward annexation were taken “years and years before I got here,” he said the successful annexation of North Burien “is due in large part to the work of [the unincorporated area council].”

“It was a struggle, but when we got down to the actual annexation, it went just as it should,” including a “real solid vote” last August for annexation by Burien. “This is good public policy.”

One of three billboards welcoming residents to Burien.

And the city’s census of North Burien residents and businesses is revealing something unexpected, he reported.

“We expected around 14,000 new residents … it looks now like it will be more than 16,000 … so that would be close to 50,000 residents” in the enlarged city.

Martin also thanked North Highline residents who live in the remaining unincorporated area “for your expression of interest in Burien.

He noted there is “still active, enthusiastic interest” on the part of several Burien City Council members in an eventual annexation of that area, which remains a future option for these residents.

But, Martin added, the city “wants to make this annexation a success first.”

North Burien has already been included in the city’s planning process, he continued, including discussions for an ongoing program of maintaining city streets with routine asphalt overlays. Code enforcement will increase gradually with consideration for what has been allowed here in the past.

The city is also working with the King County Sheriff’s Office “to have a physical presence” in North Burien. This will probably include police staffing, parks and recreation information and permit processing via teleconnection with city hall at the existing sheriff’s storefront office in Boulevard Park.

“We’re hoping for something more central, but this is fine for now,” Martin said.

On Monday (Mar. 1st), Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large published a followup article that is basically a reaction to him being confronted by Burien Mayor Joan McGilton, Councilmember Kathy Keene and City Manager Mike Martin over Burien’s desire to annex the remaining portions of White Center.

The encounter came after Large published a column on Feb. 3rd extolling how White Center is “the right fit” for Seattle.

Councilmember Keene then sent us a copy of a letter she sent The Times, where she strongly refuted Large and claimed that Burien would be a better fit for White Center (read Keene’s letter here).

In Large’s latest column, he starts out by saying:

Burien is getting feisty.

The small city is not counting itself out as a home to the northern neighborhoods of North Highline.

So now, “feisty” Burien has struck back, and the columnist has printed our cityfolk’s claims, stating that “Burien knows what it wants” – read his full column here.

We wonder what will happen next in this political opinion-shaping chess match…stay tuned.

by Ralph Nichols

Burien City Manager Mike Martin is concerned – very concerned – about the likelihood that Initiative 1033 will pass in November’s general election. So much, in fact, that he’s exploring the possibility of a local referendum that could exempt Burien from the requirements of this tax-limitation ballot measure should it win approval statewide.

“If I-1033 passes, it will stop the city cold in its tracks,” Martin told The B-Town Blog. “The progress we’ve been making will just plod along if we no longer have the tools to build on what we’ve done so far. They’ll go away and that’s a fact.”

According to the ballot measure summary, I-1033 “would limit growth in state revenues … and limit growth in county and city revenues. The limit would be adjusted based on annual growth in inflation and population…. The limit would exclude voter-approved revenue increases. Revenues above the limit would reduce property tax levies.”

Burien City Council members voted 3-1 on Oct. 5 to oppose I-1033, with three opponents of the initiative absent.

Earlier, city Finance Director Tabatha Miller told them that restrictions imposed by I-1033 would be “problematic for Burien” because “it does not take into account commercial growth like that envisioned in the Northeast Development Area…. In essence, any commercial growth in the NERA or elsewhere which increased the City’s revenues could not be used to provide the supporting city services, but instead would decrease the next year’s property taxes.”

“If people want smaller government, we can give them that,” Martin said. “But that will have consequences in the way we serve our residents…. It’s safe to say that we would slow down or stop major projects in the works” – including new development in the Northeast Redevelopment Area, street and sidewalk work, and discretionary programs from parks to senior services.

“There’s a real potential for closing the city down for all or part of one day a week,” he added. “That is not being punitive, it is being responsive” if the ballot measure passes.

To sidestep these impacts of I-1033, Martin is considering proposing to the council “a referendum that would allow the city to opt out” of its requirements.

While this proposition allows voters to approve property tax levy lid lifts locally, Martin noted it also could impact grants and other sources of funding not covered by a levy lid lift.

That, he explained, is why he’s exploring the possibility of a referendum – despite the fact he isn’t sure whether a city legally can exempt itself from a voter-passed law. Currently he’s investigating the legality of such a move.

“If it’s possible for the city to opt out, I will propose to council that they place such a referendum on the February (special election) ballot.”

Burien City Manager Mike Martin on Tuesday (June 23rd) was granted a deferred prosecution (download court doc as a PDF here) on a DUI charge (driving under the influence) by King County District Court Judge Eileen Kato.

Martin, 55, must complete a two-year alcohol treatment program at Highline Medical Center, and will remain on probation and under court supervision for five years.

In petitioning the court for the deferred prosecution, Martin agreed that police reports of an April 19 one-car accident in which he was the driver included “sufficient evidence” to establish probable cause that he was impaired at the time. He also agreed to participate in alcohol treatment.

Martin must attend at least two meetings a week in the treatment program for two years, follow all prescribed programs, totally abstain from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs for five years, and not refuse to take Breathalyzer or blood-alcohol tests on request.

He will be allowed to drive if he has a valid driver’s license and car insurance, but only with an interlock device in any vehicle he operates that will prevent the engine from starting if he has been drinking alcohol.

Court costs and program fees that he must pay total about $2,500.

If Martin successfully completes alcohol treatment and complies with all other mandates of the deferred prosecution as ordered by Judge Kato, this infraction will be removed from his record.

“I am optimistic that you will successfully complete the program,” the judge told Martin upon granting the deferred prosecution.

According to Pierce College’s Chemical Dependency Studies program website:

The legislature finds that the deferred prosecution program is an alternative to punishment for persons who will benefit from a treatment program if the treatment program is provided under circumstances that do not unreasonably endanger public safety or the traditional goals of the criminal justice system. This alternative to punishment is dependent for success upon appropriate treatment and the willingness and ability of the person receiving treatment to cooperate fully with the treatment program. The legislature finds that some persons have sought deferred prosecution but have been unable or unwilling to cooperate with treatment requirements and escaped punishment because of the difficulties in resuming prosecution after significant delay due to the absence of witnesses at a later date and the congestion in courts at a later date. The legislature further finds that the deferred prosecution statutes require clarification. The purpose of sections 4 through 19 of this act is to provide specific standards and procedures for judges and prosecutors to use in carrying out the original intent of the deferred prosecution statutes.”

“Deferred prosecution is a true intervention initiative.  It recognizes that crisis is often the best incentive to motivate changes in behavior or confront dysfunctional or unhealthy life-styles.  It also recognizes the disease nature of chemical addictions, and the “loss of control” that accompanies chemical dependency and many mental health diagnoses.

However, because it is unique, deferred prosecution is also controversial.  It has evolved over time, changing to reflect public values, and many times facing the prospect of repeal.  Today, deferred prosecution remains one of the primary policy tools for encouraging alcoholics and other drug addicts to seek treatment, accounting for over one-third of the referrals resulting from an arrest for Driving While Under the Influence (DUI).”

Martin was arrested for DUI on April 19th after his vehicle left the road and struck a ceramic pot in a yard in Burien. He has been city manager since November 2006, and his yearly salary is $135,180.

On May 11th, his contract was amended by the city of Burien with strict “alcohol-related conditions” (download and view the PDF here). The City Council approved the contract revision on a 5-1 vote.

Under the terms of Martin’s revised contract, he “will not report to work at the city or remain at work or on duty while under the influence of alcohol,” which is defined as a blood alcohol level of .02 percent or above.

Martin is also required by the city to submit to random alcohol testing without prior notice to ensure compliance with this condition. In addition, he is to submit to alcohol testing at the request of the mayor (or deputy mayor in the mayor’s absence) and one other council member if there is a good-faith “articulated suspicion by any person that the manager has reported to work or remained at work under the influence of

On May 15th, he entered a plea of not guilty to the DUI charge and Judge Kato then scheduled Tuesday’s pretrial hearing.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Citizens Mount Protest Against City Manager Mike Martin
• BREAKING: Mike Martin Enters “Not Guilty” Plea To DUI
• OPINION: What Mike Martin Should Have Said About His DUI
• City Keeps Mike Martin On, Requires Amended Contract
• City Manager Mike Martin Formally Charged With DUI
• OPINION: Mike Martin Must Tell The Truth Or Resign
• Burien City Manager Mike Martin Arrested For DUI

Photo of City Manager Mike Martin by Michael Brunk

by Ralph Nichols

It’s official. Several thousand North Highline residents now can mark Aug. 18th – primary election day – on their calendars as the date they will decide at last whether to be annexed by Burien.

City Manager Mike Martin said Friday (May 22nd) the 30-day period to appeal the King County Boundary Review Board’s prior approval of Burien’s plan to annex the south part of the North Highline unincorporated area expired May 18 with no challenge being filed.

“In all these years of talking about annexation, we’ve never been to this point,” Martin noted. “This is a major advancement … I encourage them, whether they like the idea of annexation or not, to vote.”

The August primary marks “the first time the county will hold an all mail-in election,” he continued. “I hope this increases voter turnout. After all these years, we’re looking for something definite about the preference of residents up there.”

In the meantime, language for the ballot measure will be written, and Burien will continue to hold informational forums in North Highline. The next forum is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, from 6 to 7:15 p.m. at Southern Heights Elementary School, 11249 14th Ave. South.

State law requires a simple majority vote of residents in an area designated for annexation before the merger can take effect. Residents of an annexing city do not vote on the question.

As seen in the map at left, the south part of the North Highline unincorporated area that will become part of Burien if annexation is approved by voters is defined by a zigzag line that extends west to east along Southwest 112th Street in north Shorewood, South 116th Street, South 112th Street, and South 107th Street in Boulevard Park, ending at Tukwila.

Left in the remaining unincorporated area between Burien and Seattle would be the North Highline fire station, Evergreen High School and Pool, and the Top Hat neighborhood. Much of Beverly Park and Boulevard Park, including the Rainier Golf and Country Club, would be absorbed by Burien.

Proposals to annex North Highline have generated controversy in both Burien and North Highline – and between Burien and Seattle after Mayor Greg Nickels claimed the White Center area and beyond for his city – ever since Countywide Planning Policies, a regional offshoot of Washington’s Growth Management Act, called for King County’s unincorporated urban areas to be included in cities by 2012.

The county also targeted North Highline for annexation in 2003 in the wake of the first in a succession of severe budget shortfalls, and offered financial assistance to cities that annex unincorporated urban areas.

In 2006, Burien, Seattle and King County agreed to work cooperatively for annexation of the entire unincorporated area by one or both cities. But despite their Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the issue, Seattle never responded to offers by Burien to settle competing claims on North Highline. This inaction led Burien to adopt independently early last year its plan to annex the south part of the unincorporated area.

Seattle objected to Burien’s annexation plan and challenged it before the Boundary Review Board. Following a public hearing in March, the board formally approved Burien’s request on April 16.

If North Highline voters approve annexation on Aug. 18th, the city will begin the legal and logistical processes of incorporation and those residents will become part of Burien in March 2010.

Wednesday afternoon (May 20th), Tai Oh of Burien (right, below) and Terry Torbet of Kent (left) stood on SW 148th near First Avenue South holding a large banner protesting City Manager Mike Martin’s recent DUI incident, as seen in these pictures by Michael Brunk:

“The City of Burien deserves better than a DUI felon,” said Oh, the organizer (picture above). “Residents of Burien should demand and expect more for their tax dollars.”

When asked if they planned to protest again, Torbet (pictured above) said “We’ll keep coming back until he’s gone!”

Tai Oh says he’s protesting because he contacted the city council as a body and each member individually via e-mail and voicemail and not a single councilmember responded to him.

His position is that he looked to his city leaders to take action and they did nothing.

by Ralph Nichols

Burien City Manager Mike Martin entered a plea of “Not Guilty” on Friday (May 15th) to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol stemming from a minor traffic accident on April 19th. Martin appeared before King County District Court Judge Eileen Kato, who scheduled a pretrial hearing for June 23rd.

Martin, 55, refused to perform field sobriety tests or take a Breathalyzer test when he was arrested following the one-car accident in Burien. As a result, his driver’s license was suspended, as required by state law, when formal DUI charges were filed on May 6th.

On Monday (May 11th), the Burien City Council approved an amended contract for Martin on a 5-1 vote, which imposes strict “alcohol-related conditions” with which he must “comply fully” to retain his position as city manager.

In agreeing to the addition of alcohol-related conditions to his contract, Martin denied committing “any wrongful or criminal act,” but acknowledged “that the facts and circumstances of his arrest may constitute ‘cause’ to terminate his employment under the Original Agreement.”

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• OPINION: What Mike Martin Should Have Said About His DUI
• City Keeps Mike Martin On, Requires Amended Contract
• City Manager Mike Martin Formally Charged With DUI
• OPINION: Mike Martin Must Tell The Truth Or Resign
• Burien City Manager Mike Martin Arrested For DUI