To paraphrase part of a recent Suze Orman article on financial planning about acquiring a dream home, it would sound like this: "If annexing an area you long for requires the appearance of a fairy godmother, a grant out of the blue, a winning lottery ticket, promises of funds from another governmental agency, or stretching the city finances to the point that the dream is destined to become a nightmare, then the city should reshape its dreams.

What good is the dream if it leads to a financial mess?"

The Burien city council meeting held on May 19th was very telling in the way the council operates.

At the start of the meeting, about 30 minutes was given over to a presentation by a representative of Waste Management. This presentation had nothing to do with the stewardship of Burien but it was given top billing.

At the end of the meeting, the last item being a discussion and vote on annexation, about 30 minutes was given over to this very important item. The discussion of annexation has everything to do with the stewardship of Burien finances.

The meeting priorities seem upside down. Even stranger during the annexation discussion, there was not a single question from the council as to the costs of annexation. There were two off-the-cuff remarks about funding, one that the county may pick up some of the capital costs, and the other about receiving some of the sales tax revenue from the state to offset some of the annexation costs.

The only remark about costs came from the city manager; that being that a full annexation of North Highline would break the bank. In spite of this comment, several of the council members still pushed for full annexation by some means or other.

After the vote, annexation is now firmly on the table. A cost analysis seems to have been too much to ask for. The word "Stewardship" is not in the council annexation dictionary.

James Sharkey

Treasurer

Burien Residents Against Annexation