City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 9, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Simpson-Clark, chair; Jim Clingan, Janet Shull, Michael Sumner, Barbara Williams
Absent: Rebecca McInteer, Jon Newton
Others Present: Scott Greenberg, Community Development director; David Johanson, senior planner; Gerry Lindsay, minutes taker
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners McInteer and Newton.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to move New Business to precede Old Business and to approve the agenda as amended was made by Commissioner Sumner. Second was by Commissioner Williams and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment – None
Approval of Minutes – None
New Business
A. Annexation Study Presentation No. 1: Police Services, Community Development, Annexation Process Options
Community Development Director Scott Greenberg explained that the City Council set as a priority the designating of all or part of the North Highline area on the 2004 work program. A draft annexation study was reviewed by the council in April. That study excluded the White Center area, and after reviewing the study the council directed staff to expand the study to include the White Center area, also known as Area F.
The city is bound by the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies. In both of those documents, cities are designated as the most appropriate providers of local urban services. King County has been forced to shift funding away from regional services to local urban services, and that has had a profound impact on regional services and the county’s current expense fund budget. If Seattle were to annex all or most of the area, the ability of several of Burien’s sewer, water and fire districts to maintain current service levels and costs could be impacted. In several area governance surveys conducted since 1999, annexing to Burien has appeared as one of the top choices.
Mr. Greenberg said the Countywide Planning Policies call for the elimination of all urban unincorporated islands by 2013. The issues surrounding annexation have been studied extensively, beginning in 1999 when King County prepared a governance report outlining three options for the unincorporated islands: 1) remaining unincorporated; 2) incorporating as a city; and 3) annexing to an adjacent city. The focus of that study was from the perspective of area residents and businesses and included financial data, level of service information, and a survey of residents. The report concluded that incorporation of the North Highline area would not be feasible. The majority of the residents favored annexation if staying unincorporated were not an option.
In 2001 King County prepared a North Highline annexations options report from the perspective of the potential annexing cities, Burien and Seattle. The study assumed Burien would annex Area A, which extends to 116th Street, and that Seattle would annex the rest. The report concluded that the cost to Burien to serve the annexed area would exceed revenues by between $1.2 million to $1.5 million, and that the cost to Seattle to serve Area B through Area F would exceed revenues by about $6 million.
Burien hired the consultant that conducted the 2001 King County study to look at Burien annexing everything except Area F. The study was released toward the end of 2003 and showed the same operating budget shortfall range. At the request of the council the study was expanded to include Area F. The new study will update the financial numbers, take another look at the assumptions used in the studies, and take into account the major capital needs of the annexation area. A draft of the study will be issued on December 13. In 2005 the Unincorporated Area Council will have completed its incorporation study.
In 2003 King County convened a budget advisory task force to examine the county’s current expense fund, which is similar to Burien’s general fund. The task force also was charged with recommending policy and operational changes to provide significant cost savings for the county. The current expense fund covers both regional and local services. For the past few years expenditures in the fund have grown at a faster rate than revenues, creating a serious deficit. The unincorporated areas simply do not generate sufficient revenues overall for King County to continue providing the more expensive local services. One recommendation of the task force was to have all of the unincorporated urban areas annex to cities or incorporate. In the meantime, in order to balance the fund the county has had to shift dollars collected for regional services to cover local costs in the unincorporated areas; for 2005 the shift will be some $37.5 million, after taking reserve funds into account. For North Highline alone, the budget deficit is estimated at nearly $7 million, the largest deficit for any of the 10 urban unincorporated areas.
Mr. Greenberg told the commissioners that in 2003 the King County Executive announced an annexation initiative, the main purpose of which is to incentivize and accelerate annexations to occur faster than the 2013 timeframe established by the Countywide Planning Policies. To encourage annexations to happen, the county set aside at least $10 million to be given to cities who move to annex areas earlier. That amount is a drop in the bucket when spread over the unincorporated urban areas, especially so in light of the cumulative $22 million annual deficit for those areas.
If the city council decides it would like to pursue annexation of some or all of the North Highline area, the five different options allowed under state law will be considered. Of the five, two involve an election held within the unincorporated area; the other three options do not involve an election. In addition to the formal process, there will be some informal processes involved in which the Planning Commission will undoubtedly play a role. There will be briefings and regular updates for all the city’s boards and commissions, and for external groups such as the Unincorporated Area Council and the special districts. Meetings also will continue to be held with King County and the City of Seattle. In addition, there will be community meetings, public hearings, focus groups, and potentially an advisory ballot, all aimed at gaining the opinions of residents and business owners.
Mr. Greenberg said the three alternatives from which the council will choose are: 1) full annexation, in which Burien would annex Areas A through F; 2) partial annexation, in which Burien would annex Areas A through E and Seattle would annex Area F; and 3) no annexation, in which Seattle would annex Areas A through F.
The study assumptions include: 1) levels of service in the annexed areas on a par with those in the incorporated areas of Burien; 2) estimated expenses based on the percentage of increase in land area; 3) a 20 percent economy of scale for most city departments; 4) actual costs where they are known; 5) projections by department heads relative to the necessary staffing levels; and 6) revenue figures from the 2003 study increased by six percent, and the preliminary 2005 city budget, except for police for which the 2003 numbers times 1.03 were used to approximate 2005 dollars.
The preliminary draft on revenues, excluding Surface Water Management fees, show an increase from $5.5 million to $9 million, depending on the chosen alternative. For police services, the figures vary based on the amount of unincorporated land that remains in both North Highline and West Hill, the latter of which also is served by the King County Sheriff’s Department and by contract by Burien; there is already a built-in economy of scale in terms of command structure. The no annexation alternative will cost the city between $600,000 to $900,000 more annually because the city would have to pay for some services that currently are shared.
With regard to Community Development, Mr. Greenberg said the estimated cost to serve the area is between $548,000 and $736,000, not including one-time costs that can be substantial. One-time costs include writing and integrating a Comprehensive Plan for the annexed area, conducting the necessary regulatory updates, and costs associated with redevelopment. A portion of the $10 million set aside by the county could be applied to the one-time costs.
Commissioner Williams asked if either the Growth Management Act or the Countywide Planning Policies specify what kinds of cities offer the best form of urban governance. Mr. Greenberg said he would have to research an answer to that question.
Commissioner Williams asked if the type of city government Burien currently enjoys could be expanded to include the large population base the annexation areas have. Mr. Greenberg allowed that it would be.
Chair Simpson-Clark said his graduate studies were in economics and that he worked in the field for many years. He said he took the presented numbers at face value and could not find any circumstance under which the numbers would be positive over a generation. There is nothing foreseeable that could change over the next 25 years that would make the White Center area economically viable. Absent an annuity that would provide funding to cover the deficit gap in perpetuity, there is no reasonable economic basis for annexation. For the most part the service costs are predictable and can be projected on into the future; most of the capital costs could be written off over a fairly short time period. If the city is going to lose money, it would be more prudent to lose the funds trying to provide services within Burien; such expenses are predictable and fairly modest in the larger scheme. Taking on something the county wants to get rid of because it is a money loser, and that cannot be shown to improve in the future, would make little or no sense.
Chair Simpson-Clark said the amount of revenue generated by the large number of people and businesses within the potential annexation areas is quite low, and the anticipation is that little will change in the near future to change the numbers positively. Any amount of money thrown into the kitty aimed at inducing the city to annex the area will eventually run out. If the city desires to move ahead with the annexation, it will have to do so solely from a social perspective.
Mr. Greenberg said the city could come to the point in its study where it determines that it will not be financially feasible to annex the area, no matter how compelling the social reasons. There are other cities in the county that may end up in the same position, and there is talk of joining with King County in pushing the state legislature to come up with a funding solution to the issues. Chair Simpson-Clark said such a solution would have to entail a non-declining fund.
Commissioner Sumner suggested that the costs associated with the no-annexation alternative could in many ways be considered cheap at twice the price when compared to the financial impacts associated with annexing the entire area.
Mr. Greenberg explained that if Seattle were to annex the entire area, the fire district would need to build a new fire station in the north part of Burien in order to provide adequate service. The property owners within the district would have to pay for it. Those costs will be incorporated into the study so the community can be fully informed before any actions are taken.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Sumner, Mr. Greenberg said if the surveys had clearly shown the residents of North Highline have no interest in annexing to Burien, the issue would likely not be on the table at all.
Commissioner Clingan noted that one of the no-election alternatives would involve an interlocal agreement and asked who the parties to the agreement would be. Mr. Greenberg said the agreement would be between the city and the county.
Commissioner Clingan asked if annexing only Area A would solve the fire district problem. Mr. Greenberg explained that it would not. He said the option would leave Shorewood and the north part of Burien inadequately covered in terms of response time.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that the costs associated with providing adequate fire district service levels are trivial compared against the long-term costs. Mr. Greenberg agreed insofar as the short-term costs are associated with capital. However, for the long term there would need to be a change, because the residents of the district are not currently paying for the operations costs.
Commissioner Sumner asked if the annexation study conducted by the consultant is completely unbiased and will return a true and accurate picture regardless of what the city’s wishes are. Mr. Greenberg said the study is based on the 2003 study, which was unbiased. The consultant is not doing the study from the standpoint of any particular frame of mind.
Chair Simpson-Clark observed that in the economics world the devil is in the assumptions. One of the assumptions of the study is that the expenses are based on the percentage increase in land area, which is a completely erroneous assumption. Expenses simply are not tied to land area; they are related to population. There is a certain economy of scale that occurs in urban areas, but most of the expensive services, such as police, are based on the number of residents, not the land area. Mr. Greenberg said he would ask the consultant to offer an explanation for why the land area methodology is used in the study.
Old Business
A. Bike and Pedestrian Comprehensive Plan Amendment
David Johanson, senior planner, provided as Attachment 1 to the commission packet the staff-recommended amendments necessary to incorporate the adopted Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. He said a public hearing is slated for December 14 and noted that development of a commission recommendation to the council will continue on into January.
Mr. Johanson said when the council held a public hearing on the facilities plan, a total of 11 persons spoke. He said he did not tally the comments for or against, but noted that a number of the comments were focused on the proposed Seahurst Park trail.
Commissioner Williams observed that the commentary for Policy MM-3.5 clarifies that there was a “safest route to school” map prepared. Absent the commentary and the statement that such a map is needed, there is no reference in the plan to the fact that the map exists. There should be language added to clarify that the map is available.
Chair Simpson-Clark pointed out that policies should clearly state what the city intends to do. Policies should not include language explaining that the policy has been carried out. Policies that have in fact been implemented should not necessarily be removed, especially if what the policy describes is an ongoing goal of the city.
Commissioner Williams stated that policies enlarge on goals by outlining a specific plan for achieving the goal. Even without changing the wording or intent of a goal, the specific policies attached to it can change over time.
Commissioner Shull commented that Policy MM-3.1 does not read like a policy. However, it would work very well as an explanatory addendum to Goal MM-3. She proposed combining the two.
There was general discussion regarding retaining the word “Create” in Goal MM-3. Also proposed was the phrase “Develop and maintain” to start the policy.
It was agreed to leave Goal MM-3 as proposed in the staff memo, and to revise Policy MM-3.1 to read something like: “Implement the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan adopted by the City Council through Ordinance 409 or as amended.”
Returning to Policy MM-3.5, Commissioner Williams proposed using language that references the safest route to school map included in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan.
It was agreed that policies MM-3.9 and MM-3.10 should be combined.
Chair Simpson-Clark noted for the record that “Old Burien” is actually a registered trade name owned by him. He indicated that the city is free to use the term without compensation or recognition.
Commissioner Williams proposed using “…should have priority…” in place of “…should be encouraged…” in Policy MM-3.9.
Commissioner Shull noted that the word “emphasizes” in Policy MM-3.12 should read “emphasize.”
Commissioner Shull asked why the wording of the last sentence of Policy MM-3.13 had been changed from “…densities are five units per acre and greater…” to “…densities are greater than five units per acre….” Mr. Johanson answered that RS-7200 equates to five units per acre.
Town Square Report – None
Director’s Report – None
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department