City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 23, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Simpson-Clark, Rebecca McInteer, Michael Sumner, Barbara Williams
Absent: Jim Clingan, Jon Newton, Janet Shull
Others Present: Scott Greenberg, Community Development director; Gerry Lindsay, minutes taker
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Clingan, Newton and Shull.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Sumner and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment – None
Approval of Minutes
A. October 26, 2004
Commissioner Williams drew attention to the second paragraph on the fourth page and asked that the first sentence be revised to read, “Commissioner Williams asked if many people attended plan hearings before approval of the pedestrian and bicycle plan.”
Motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Sumner and the motion carried unanimously.
Old Business – None
New Business
A. Annexation Study Presentation No. 2: Parks, Public Works, Administrative Services
Community Development Director Scott Greenberg reported that the final draft of the annexation study will be presented to the City Council on December 13; the same will be presented to the Planning Commission on December 14. The council will provide the direction for what approach to take once the study is completed.
Efforts to make the annexation study and process as transparent as possible to the community are continuing, both within Burien and in the unincorporated area. All information is updated and posted on the city website as quickly as possible. A presentation was made to the Unincorporated Area Council on November 4, and staff also will attend the council’s December 2 meeting. Information will be presented to the Business and Economic Development Partnership again on December 10. There have been meetings with King County staff, and a meeting with higher level staff from the King County Executive’s office is slated for December 6. Attempts are under way to set up a meeting with staff from the Seattle Mayor’s office to confirm some of the assumptions being operated under, such as the Seattle Fire Department will not provide services in Burien and that the Seattle water department will take over the water districts if annexed.
Continuing, Mr. Greenberg said there are three alternatives in the study. In the Full Alternative, Burien would annex Areas A through F; in the Partial Alternative, Burien would annex Areas A through E, and Seattle would annex Area F; and in the No Annexation Alternative, Burien would annex nothing and Seattle would annex Areas A through F. To the extent possible, the study divides up the costs by area.
The commissioners were shown the expenditures for each administrative department. Mr. Greenberg explained that in the written materials the general fund revenues for each department are shown allocated by the percent of the General Fund each department spends. Upon further reflection, it has become clear that the General Fund should be looked at in its entirety.
Mr. Greenberg confirmed that the numbers are tied to the percentage increases based on total land area. Chair Simpson-Clark noted that Area A alone has 60 percent more population per unit area; such a huge difference in the density makes an area comparison almost meaningless. Clearly the number of people is what the numbers should be based on. Mr. Greenberg said he intends to set up a meeting with the consultant to discuss why the percentage of land increase is used as the basis for calculating the numbers. He added that the police contract numbers are in fact based on what it is costing currently to provide services in the annexation areas.
Chair Simpson-Clark noted that the annexation could conceivably double the population of Burien, which is of far more importance than the amount of land area that will be added.
Mr. Greenberg explained that the Public Works budget includes the General Fund, the Street Fund and the Surface Water Management Fund. He shared figures with the commission that included revenues for the Street Fund and the Surface Water Management Fund. Under each of those two funds, revenues exceed expenditures, and the balance goes to capital reserves. The preliminary analysis for the Street Fund, however, indicates that the capital reserves under either the Full Annexation or the Partial Annexation alternative do not come close to covering even the overlay costs at the level of service adopted by Burien. It was noted that the Surface Water Management Fund numbers are based on the new fee schedule adopted by the Council on November 22.
Commissioner Williams asked if the King County level of service for street overlays matches that of Burien. Mr. Greenberg said the adopted pavement rating standard in King County is 75; the adopted pavement rating number for Burien is 71.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked if the figures relative to levels of service include costs similar to those associated with 152nd and the Town Square district, and if the number of park acres for the annexed area will have to be brought up to match the acres-per-capita standard of Burien. Mr. Greenberg said specific street improvements are part of the capital analysis that is still under way. Staff is working on the capital side to determine what the county has on its six-year CIP and intends to use that as the starting point. It is not known yet whether or not anything would be added to that list of projects. With regard to park acreage, Mr. Greenberg said Burien has a standard of three acres per 1000 residents, which for the current city boundary is about 90 acres of park, which is in place. The same standard applied to the North Highline area would be roughly the same, and the total park acreage in the annexation area is close to 85 acres, very close to the standard.
Commissioner Williams commented that in adding to Burien populations that already have their own service retail, it will be difficult to retain the feeling of centralization and focus. Those people will be more likely to shop at Westwood Center than downtown Burien; for one thing it will be closer. She asked if the sense of community has been addressed at all by the consultant in the annexation study. Mr. Greenberg allowed that it has not. He agreed that there is another whole level that will need to receive some attention if the direction of the council is to continue pursuing annexation. The consultant has been solely focused on the financial aspects.
Mr. Greenberg commented that if the full annexation goes forward, Burien will become much more north-south oriented geographically. Redmond has a similar layout and the residents of the north end tend to frequent different places from those frequented by the residents of the south end. In the end, however, it all works together: they have the same government structure, they receive the same utility bills, and they all have a Redmond post office address.
Commissioner Sumner asked what benefits, if any, the city can reap by annexing the North Highline area. Mr. Greenberg pointed out that under the Growth Management Act all unincorporated urban islands must either incorporate on their own or be annexed by other cities. The county is facing a severe budget crisis, the local cities, including Burien, have agreed the county should stop diverting money from regional services to urban services to the unincorporated areas. Burien can decide not to annex anything, but even under that scenario the city will be facing increased costs in terms of public safety expenditures in order to maintain the same levels of service.
Commissioner Sumner asked where the school district stands with regard to the annexation issue. Mr. Greenberg answered that if Seattle were to annex the entire area, they could take over part of the Highline School District. However, the process to do so is incredibly complicated and cumbersome. It would require the Highline School District to agree to the takeover. For the most part, school districts are left alone when annexations occur. Annexation will not affect the operation of schools within the district.
Commissioner Williams asked why Tukwila and SeaTac have opted out of even considering the annexation of any of the North Highline area. Mr. Greenberg said in a nutshell neither jurisdiction is interested. As far as SeaTac is concerned, most of the annexation area that abuts their jurisdiction is owned by the Port of Seattle. Area D was at one time designated as a Potential Annexation Area for Tukwila; there remains on the books a dispute between Seattle and Tukwila as to who should annex the area, but all indications are that the claims will be dropped if another city steps up seeking to annex the area. Tukwila has officially indicated it no longer has an interest in Area D.
Town Square Report – None
Director’s Report – None
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Sumner and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department