VIDEO: Will White Center become part of Burien? City leaders come to WC for annexation-info meeting
If you couldn’t make it to tonight’s first White Center informational session about November’s North Highline vote on Burien annexation – you can watch our video of the entire hour-long meeting, starting with the introduction by Burien city staffer Nhan Nguyen, describing it as a homecoming of sorts, since he worked previously for the WC Community Development Association.
Some toplines:
Most of the basic information was presented by Burien’s city manager Mike Martin, who said that if annexation is approved by a majority of North Highline voters in November, the area could be part of his city by this time next year. What would that mean? He addressed a variety of points – as well as what it would NOT mean. Referring to the sudden appearance of a raised divider down 16th SW in the heart of downtown WC, and a short-lived county proposal to sell Puget Sound Park, he declared, “We don’t do things that way.” He also touted Burien’s permit process as much better than what unincorporated-area residents and businesses have had to deal with through King County.
The first audience question answered by Martin was a pointed one: What would happen to the marijuana dispensaries in the North Highline area if it’s annexed? Burien doesn’t allow them, replied Martin (as he has said at previous community meetings); joining the meeting later, Police Chief Scott Kimerer addressed the topic again, saying that state and federal laws would be enforced – and acknowledging they may change. He also said that White Center would retain its law-enforcement storefront.
Martin sought to reassure White Center/North Highline residents and businesspeople on hand that they respect and appreciate WC’s unique character and don’t want to change it, but instead, just to support it. He also had harsh words for Burien residents who oppose annexing White Center and vicinity, calling them “small-minded and mean-spirited.” One concern that was raised about the annexation plan: Burien resident Chestine Edgar sought to challenge the issue of how much money Burien would get from the state sales-tax credit made available for annexation situations like this.
As first reported here earlier this week, the second informational meeting in White Center is scheduled for July 12th at Dubsea Coffee in Greenbridge … and Nguyen told tonight’s audience that Burien will have a presence at Jubilee Days (July 21-22) to answer questions and provide information.
Meantime, Burien’s info page – including the official FAQ in five languages, among other resources – can be found here. Our archive of WCN annexation coverage, newest to oldest, is here.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
June 23rd, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Don’t do it…..Nothing will change and you will get to pay Burien city TAX on all your utilities.
June 24th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
As you will in Seattle. Plus your property taxes will skyrocket when you get to pay for the seawall/waterfront project, two upcoming major school levies, the arena project Seattle’s going to end up paying a good chunk of, the streetcar project(s) that will never come to White Center, and the fact Seattle would fill White Center with high-density housing just like they’re doing in Delridge, that you’ll also get to pay for.
June 25th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Burien is probably the best bet. Either way taxes will go up, as citizens will begin to see municiple-level services (provided at a proper level).
There are pros and cons to either city, but Burien provides WC residents with the greatest chance of having a voice. Seattle would likely be OK also, but Seattle isn’t proposing annexation anytime soon (if ever), and the voices of WC residents would be diluted joining a city of that size.
June 27th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
I heard martin say it will cost an addition $90 per person if annex happens. Then he said $90 per household. Which is it?
June 28th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Dear Fello Voters;
This upcoming vote on Nov. 6, 2012, as to whether or not
we should join the City of Burien, has absolutely nothing
to do with the City of Seattle…….NOTHING!
Please vote “NO” to joining the City of Burien.
Thank You
July 1st, 2012 at 9:41 am
Yes JF, the vote on November 6 is a vote is a Yes or No vote for Burien. The vote was never intended to be a vote to join Burien or Seattle. Seattle has had many opportunities to put annexation to a vote, but over the last 10 years, they have failed to move forward with a decision. As recently as last year, Seattle City Council voted against putting the annexation of North Highline to a vote. The fact is that North Highline cannot stay unincorporated for much longer. King County has made is clear that they do not want to serve urban unincorporated areas such as North Highline, and have made some severe cuts to this community. If the vote for Burien fails, the community will continue to languish under King County as there will be little to no road repairs, more cuts to the sheriff’s dept, continued zoning for tax exempt subsidized housing, which adversely affects taxes collected for the North Highline Fire Dept and schools, as well as placing strains on social services for this community of approximately 17,000. Additionally, King County does not have ordinances in place to control permitting of dance clubs (remember Club E), marijuana markets, and other types of businesses that have proven to be detrimental to this community. We also stand to lose the White Center and Boulevard Park Libraries that serve very important roles in these otherwise very underserved communities. Don’t kid yourself, if the Burien vote fails, we will suffer, and ultimately may very well end up in Seattle without the opportunity of a vote by inter-local agreement. With Burien we will have a say in how the community grows, we will have a say in our future. With King County or Seattle, we have little to no voice
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:57 pm
@JF… or anyone else for that matter:
Can you please detail the reasons why being annexed by Burien would be a bad thing? Yea, we might have to pay more for services that we are not getting now. I have yet to hear any major negatives from the area that was annexed last year. If you are just going to argue against ANY annexation, I think you are fooling yourself that the idea is plausible.
July 5th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Tom,
Mike Martin Burien City Manager’s record:
2005 hit and run; resigned as Chief Admin Officer City of Kent and attended alcohol classes.
2009 charged w/DUI on 4/19/09 after driving into a yard & hitting a ceramic pot. Granted deferred prosecution in June 2009.
What you can expect from Martin’s Annexation:
Increased taxes & fees:
$10 license tab fee
$90 per household tax increase
$90 Business license fee
$125 B&O Tax
$500,000 for cost over runs on Ambaum overlay project due to Martin’s mismanagement, passed on to tax payers
$2,750,000 from Martin’s mismanagement of the road and infrastructure project on the 1st Ave. project, also passed on to tax payers
$77,000,000 in increased taxes to provide infrastructure upgrades in Area Y which Burien has no way to pay for.
What you can expect NOT to get from Martin’s Annexation:
We won’t get:
$5,000,000 per year: This will only happen if the sales taxes collected from Area Y meets the proper criteria.
(Area X was annexed in 2010, and in 2011, Burien received $514,635 in sales tax credit money, not the $5mil Martin brags about)
We won’t get:
More police for Area Y. Seattle figured 15 officers, Burien figures 3 officers. 1 storefront 2 field. Per Chief Kimerer.
We won’t get:
Quality animal control. Martin decided to go with a cheap alternative called CARES instead of King County Animal Control. Expect higher taxes to get KCAC if annexed.
We won’t get:
Lower utility costs. City Light will add a surcharge to the bills for Area Y for the street light and traffic signal upgrades on 1st Ave in Burien.
We definitely won’t get:
Government Transparency.
How’s that sound Tom? Those are just some facts that have happened under Mike Martin during his watch as city manager.
Area Y Mike
July 5th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Area Y Mike, Many inaccuracies sir.
Start with the biggest where you say:
We won’t get:
$5,000,000 per year: This will only happen if the sales taxes collected from Area Y meets the proper criteria.
(Area X was annexed in 2010, and in 2011, Burien received $514,635 in sales tax credit money, not the $5mil Martin brags about.
The truth: That Sales Tax would be collected from ALL of the bigger Burien. That number would be easily met. Going further, Area X (North Burien) was annexed using a different formula, the same formula used by other cities who annexed unincorporated areas. Area Y qualifies for a unique and specific formula. Seattle lobbied Olympia and got a specific clause that will bring the new Burien up to $5 million a year if they also had Area Y listed in their PAA (Potential Annexation Area).
Joey Martinez
July 6th, 2012 at 5:36 am
Joey,
“Up to” are the key words. Yes they did change the formula, but I have yet to see or get any detailed Information from the city or elswhere that changes the $500K number by much. Nhan Nguyen stated to me they “hoped” they could reach that number and has not provided anything to prove otherwise. Since its something they go around touting, one would think it would be readily available to show the public how easily it all adds up to $5mil.
Also note: I under stated the the $90 per household, its stated on the burien website at $140 for utility and Property tax combined increase.
Also add to the apparently We won’t get: a business plan for Area Y. Martin seems to use the Berk report for that. Thats a REPORT not a PLAN.
What are the other “many” inaccuracies Joey? You only state one with no real facts to back it up. It seems as though you and the city are pretty vague about what increases are going to be levied on burien residents if this (God forbid) annexation goes through.
Area Y Mike
July 11th, 2012 at 12:00 am
Here’s what keeps happening in this debate – no one is putting up side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparisons.
Show me a true comparison: Burien vs. Seattle vs. now. Then we can all make some educated, well-rounded decisions.
Per Area Y Mike’s statements:
$10 license tab fee
**Seattle tried for $60 last fall, and though it failed, you know they’ll try again.
$90-140 per household tax increase
**But how does that compare to the tax increase we would see from Seattle?
$90 Business license fee
**This is the same as Seattle.
$125 B&O Tax
**How do you figure this, as it’s not a flat tax…? I just looked at the Burien B&O tax form, and the rate is lower than Seattle’s – B&O on $100,000 in Burien would be $50; in Seattle, depending on the type of industry, it would be between $150-415. Additionally, Seattle has a square footage tax and an employee headcount tax.
$500,000 for cost over runs on Ambaum overlay project due to Martin’s mismanagement, passed on to tax payers
$2,750,000 from Martin’s mismanagement of the road and infrastructure project on the 1st Ave. project, also passed on to tax payers
$77,000,000 in increased taxes to provide infrastructure upgrades in Area Y which Burien has no way to pay for.
**And more voters to get rid of this guy. In the meantime, Seattle has a delightful tunnel project, goofy streetcars, a seawall to replace, a broke parks department, a disaster of a school district, the Mercer project, the third sports arena project, and so on and so on. Politics suck everywhere, and many things are mis-managed in both cities. I agree about the animal control, and Burien has to take care of that, it’s a mess. But, that’s something that can be dealt with.
**What happens with either city to our:
-Libraries? KC libraries already here vs. does SPL have $ to give us new libraries?
-Schools?
-Police? KC Sheriff (contracted to Burien) versus SPD
I’m not arguing for or against either city here, I just want to see viable, accurate, usable information about both that I can actually compare.
July 11th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Verde,
What I presented were numbers based on buriens website and articles stating cost overruns and mismanagement of road projects (not to mention what martin did in fresno and frisco) I’m not comparing them to Seattle. I only compared KCSO w/what seattle said it would provide for police. I’m saying with all the mismanagement and increased fees and taxes, why change what we get from KC? We don’t need martins mismanagement. I’m only stating IMHO keep Burien and mike Martin out of area Y. If Seattle decides they want to try annexation after burien fails, then we can compare them to KC.