You sent a powerful message to the City of Federal Way. We want to thank you for voting last Tuesday.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Thank you Voters for doing the right thing!!
You sent a powerful message to the City of Federal Way. We want to thank you for voting last Tuesday.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Annexation not "Imminent" as city and county would have you believe
This was received from Bob Cowan this morning, August 24, 2007, 6:48am
Dear Mr. Galland,
King County Executive Ron Sims has asked me to respond to your e-mail of August 21, 2007. Your question was whether there is a provision in state law that allows the county to unilaterally mandate annexation of an urban area into a city. The brief answer to your question is "No".
Under state law there are five general methods of annexation as noted below. None of the existing methods allow the county to unilaterally mandate an urban unincorporated area into a city. The methods are briefly described below.
1) Election Method Annexation: Residents can file a petition (in prescribed format, signed by not less than 10 percent of the number of voters in the area to be annexed who voted in the last general election) with the city asking for an annexation election. The city need not agree to hold the election. Alternately, the legislative body of a city or town may adopt a resolution calling for the annexation of certain territory by election. In both cases the city files a resolution with the County Council. The County Council then adopts an ordinance setting the date for an election on the question of annexation. Only registered voters within the proposed annexation area may cast ballots in the election. The annexation is approved if supported by a simple majority of those voting.
2) Direct Petition Method Annexation (”60% petition”): Annexation is initiated by filing two separate petitions with the city. The first petition is signed by owners of property representing not less than 10% of the assessed value of the property in the area proposed to be annexed. This filing notifies the city of the residents’ intent to commence annexation proceedings. The legislative body then accepts, rejects, or geographically modifies the proposed annexation. A second petition must then be signed by the owners of properties representing not less than 60% of the assessed valuation of the area proposed to be annexed (i.e., not all property owners must sign/agree). The legislative body of the city or town then holds a public hearing and rejects or accepts the petition. If accepted, the petition is submitted to the Boundary Review Board (“BRB”). The BRB may expand or contract the area to be annexed based on certain criteria. The city may then accept the revised petition, or reject it entirely. Annexation is finalized by the adoption of an ordinance by the city council. This the most common method of annexation in King County.
3) 50/50 Direct Petition Method: In this method, annexation is initiated by securing signatures of both landowners and registered voters. The community initiators (owners of not less than 10% of the land area or not less than 10% of the area’s residents) must notify the city council of their intention to commence annexation. The city sets a meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the city will accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation. A second petition, in form approved by the city, is then prepared and must be signed by at least 50% of the registered voters in the area and the owners of at least 50% of the acreage of the area. Following submittal of the petition, the city holds a public hearing and then decides whether to annex (it may reject the annexation, despite having a valid petition).
4) Annexation of Small Unincorporated Islands Method: This method is only applicable to areas less than 100 acres in size where at least 80% of the area boundaries are contiguous to the city or town. A public hearing must be held, after which the city passes an ordinance to annex. The annexation is subject to resident referendum (i.e., can be overturned) if a petition signed by a number of residents of the area equal to at least 10% of the area residents voting in the last general election is filed with the city within 45 days of the date the city ordinance is adopted. If such a petition is filed, an election on the issue is held and the annexation must be approved by not less than 50% of those persons in the area voting on the matter.
5) Annexation by Interlocal Agreement Method: This relatively new method of annexation (2003 legislature) allows for annexation to occur based on an agreement between that city and the County—but the agreement (and thus the annexation) can be overturned by residents of the proposed annexation area. This method may only be used to annex areas bordered at least 60% by one or more cities. Following a public hearing(s) and approval of the annexation agreement by the city and County, the city council adopts an ordinance annexing the territory. The ordinance must set an annexation effective date at least 45 days following the date the ordinance is adopted. If, during that 45 day period, a petition is filed with the city signed by not less than at least 15% of the registered voters of the area, then an election on the question must be held at which at least a simple majority of those persons voting on the matter approve the annexation.
While it is the policy of King County to encourage urban unincorporated areas to join cities in compliance with State's Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Polices adopted by the cities and King County, should residents choose not to, the County will continue to provide mandated local services to urban unincorporated residents as best we can with the financial constraints we face.
Please contact Elissa Benson, King County Annexation Initiative Manager, at 206 296-3414 if you have further questions.
Bob Cowan
Director, King County Office of Management and Budget
701 5th Ave., Suite 3200
MS: BOA-EX-3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 205-0630
FAX: (206) 296-3462
E-mail: bob.cowan@kingcounty.gov
Dear Mr. Galland,
King County Executive Ron Sims has asked me to respond to your e-mail of August 21, 2007. Your question was whether there is a provision in state law that allows the county to unilaterally mandate annexation of an urban area into a city. The brief answer to your question is "No".
Under state law there are five general methods of annexation as noted below. None of the existing methods allow the county to unilaterally mandate an urban unincorporated area into a city. The methods are briefly described below.
1) Election Method Annexation: Residents can file a petition (in prescribed format, signed by not less than 10 percent of the number of voters in the area to be annexed who voted in the last general election) with the city asking for an annexation election. The city need not agree to hold the election. Alternately, the legislative body of a city or town may adopt a resolution calling for the annexation of certain territory by election. In both cases the city files a resolution with the County Council. The County Council then adopts an ordinance setting the date for an election on the question of annexation. Only registered voters within the proposed annexation area may cast ballots in the election. The annexation is approved if supported by a simple majority of those voting.
2) Direct Petition Method Annexation (”60% petition”): Annexation is initiated by filing two separate petitions with the city. The first petition is signed by owners of property representing not less than 10% of the assessed value of the property in the area proposed to be annexed. This filing notifies the city of the residents’ intent to commence annexation proceedings. The legislative body then accepts, rejects, or geographically modifies the proposed annexation. A second petition must then be signed by the owners of properties representing not less than 60% of the assessed valuation of the area proposed to be annexed (i.e., not all property owners must sign/agree). The legislative body of the city or town then holds a public hearing and rejects or accepts the petition. If accepted, the petition is submitted to the Boundary Review Board (“BRB”). The BRB may expand or contract the area to be annexed based on certain criteria. The city may then accept the revised petition, or reject it entirely. Annexation is finalized by the adoption of an ordinance by the city council. This the most common method of annexation in King County.
3) 50/50 Direct Petition Method: In this method, annexation is initiated by securing signatures of both landowners and registered voters. The community initiators (owners of not less than 10% of the land area or not less than 10% of the area’s residents) must notify the city council of their intention to commence annexation. The city sets a meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the city will accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation. A second petition, in form approved by the city, is then prepared and must be signed by at least 50% of the registered voters in the area and the owners of at least 50% of the acreage of the area. Following submittal of the petition, the city holds a public hearing and then decides whether to annex (it may reject the annexation, despite having a valid petition).
4) Annexation of Small Unincorporated Islands Method: This method is only applicable to areas less than 100 acres in size where at least 80% of the area boundaries are contiguous to the city or town. A public hearing must be held, after which the city passes an ordinance to annex. The annexation is subject to resident referendum (i.e., can be overturned) if a petition signed by a number of residents of the area equal to at least 10% of the area residents voting in the last general election is filed with the city within 45 days of the date the city ordinance is adopted. If such a petition is filed, an election on the issue is held and the annexation must be approved by not less than 50% of those persons in the area voting on the matter.
5) Annexation by Interlocal Agreement Method: This relatively new method of annexation (2003 legislature) allows for annexation to occur based on an agreement between that city and the County—but the agreement (and thus the annexation) can be overturned by residents of the proposed annexation area. This method may only be used to annex areas bordered at least 60% by one or more cities. Following a public hearing(s) and approval of the annexation agreement by the city and County, the city council adopts an ordinance annexing the territory. The ordinance must set an annexation effective date at least 45 days following the date the ordinance is adopted. If, during that 45 day period, a petition is filed with the city signed by not less than at least 15% of the registered voters of the area, then an election on the question must be held at which at least a simple majority of those persons voting on the matter approve the annexation.
While it is the policy of King County to encourage urban unincorporated areas to join cities in compliance with State's Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Polices adopted by the cities and King County, should residents choose not to, the County will continue to provide mandated local services to urban unincorporated residents as best we can with the financial constraints we face.
Please contact Elissa Benson, King County Annexation Initiative Manager, at 206 296-3414 if you have further questions.
Bob Cowan
Director, King County Office of Management and Budget
701 5th Ave., Suite 3200
MS: BOA-EX-3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 205-0630
FAX: (206) 296-3462
E-mail: bob.cowan@kingcounty.gov
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Annexation Defeated!! An apparent 64% Victory!!
Bravo voters, job well done.
We prevailed in sending a clear message to the city of Federal Way.
We are so happy that the attempted annexation of our unincorporated communities was defeated by the voters.
We offer special thanks to the numerous volunteers who assisted in saturating both the north and south communities with opposition signs.
With special thanks to the many people who spent long hours standing and waving signs encouraging people to vote, of course vote NO. Their effort and passion made all the difference in this vote.
This is an overwhelming vote that makes it clear that annexation is refused; the voters do not want to be a part of the City of Federal Way.
We prevailed in sending a clear message to the city of Federal Way.
We are so happy that the attempted annexation of our unincorporated communities was defeated by the voters.
We offer special thanks to the numerous volunteers who assisted in saturating both the north and south communities with opposition signs.
With special thanks to the many people who spent long hours standing and waving signs encouraging people to vote, of course vote NO. Their effort and passion made all the difference in this vote.
This is an overwhelming vote that makes it clear that annexation is refused; the voters do not want to be a part of the City of Federal Way.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Sewer and the City?
There seem to be a serious misconception that if we are annexed, that the city will be putting sewer in soon afterward. That is simply not true. The city has no control over when and where sewer is installed.
Lakehaven Water district is already our sewer and water utility and nothing changes. (Read the information on the City of Federal Way website http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1213 Public Services -- What Changes, What Doesn't?)
As it clearly states on the website, water and sewer do not change.
If you want sewer, the process will be the same after annexation as it is now; a pettition of 60% of the property owners is needed to form an LUD (Local Utility District) and then Lakehaven Water District will review and maybe install sewer in the petitioned area. This means that your desire for sewer is still up to you and your neighbors, as it should be.
Whether you are in the city or not, the process is the same. If you want sewer and are voting for annexation tol hasten the process, you are wrong and will be making a very serious irreversible mistake in voting yes.
If you want sewer service in your area, you do not need to vote for annexation, just contact Lakehaven Water District at 31627-1st Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington 98063 253-941-1516 or their website http://www.lakehaven.org/ for more information about how to get it.
PLEASE- Make an informed decision based on the facts, not beliefs or hearsay!
Here is the text of a letter from LakeHaven Water District regarding Sewers:
Lakehaven Water district is already our sewer and water utility and nothing changes. (Read the information on the City of Federal Way website http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1213 Public Services -- What Changes, What Doesn't?)
As it clearly states on the website, water and sewer do not change.
If you want sewer, the process will be the same after annexation as it is now; a pettition of 60% of the property owners is needed to form an LUD (Local Utility District) and then Lakehaven Water District will review and maybe install sewer in the petitioned area. This means that your desire for sewer is still up to you and your neighbors, as it should be.
Whether you are in the city or not, the process is the same. If you want sewer and are voting for annexation tol hasten the process, you are wrong and will be making a very serious irreversible mistake in voting yes.
If you want sewer service in your area, you do not need to vote for annexation, just contact Lakehaven Water District at 31627-1st Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington 98063 253-941-1516 or their website http://www.lakehaven.org/ for more information about how to get it.
PLEASE- Make an informed decision based on the facts, not beliefs or hearsay!
Here is the text of a letter from LakeHaven Water District regarding Sewers:
Mr. Galland,
Lakehaven's current Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan envisions that the general, East Lake Geneva area will be served in the future by sewer that would extend from a future regional pump station located somewhere near S 336th St & Peasley Canyon Way. The force main from that pump station would likely route down to Peasley Canyon Road, then up the road to connect to an existing manhole at the intersection of S 320th St & Military Rd. None of these facilities has been constructed, designed, or really even yet contemplated, and as you can probably sense this would be a significant project with signficant costs. The only difference city annexation, or lack thereof, would cause would be who issues the right-of-way construction permit(s), so essentially annexation should have little, if any, impact on any future water &/or sewer utility development.
With that said, sewer (and water for that matter) development typically occurs via one of two methods: 1) Developer Extension (DE); or 2) Lakehaven project (Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) or Capital Improvement Program (CIP)). A DE is the process where a private party, with Lakehaven approvals, constructs and extends the necessary water and/or sewer facilities to serve the developer's property(ies), including extending facilities to far edges of property for future extensions. All engineering, construction and material costs are paid by the developer. A ULID is the process where sufficient property owner interest (or single owner in some rare cases) allows Lakehaven to approve the facilities to be constructed. A DE is privately funded, where a ULID or CIP project is publicly funded. A DE is typically less expensive than a ULID or CIP project in overall project costs, primarily because a developer can solicit low bids where public agencies are required to pay prevailing wages when utilizing public funds. However, ULID assessment costs are typically spread over 10-20 years, where developer latecomer or CIP costs are due at the time an adjacent owner requests service connection.
As I mentioned above, Lakehaven is unaware of any proposed/potential sewer development in this specific area. If you'd like further information regarding the DE process, feel free to contact me. If you'd like further information on the ULID or CIP process you can contact Lakehaven's project engineer, John Lee. John can be reached at JLee@lakehaven.org or by phone at 253-946-5430.
Brian Asbury
Engineering Technician III
Lakehaven Utility District
http://www.lakehaven.org/standards.htm
FAX 253-529-4081
NOTE: Lakehaven Utility District neither warrants nor guarantees the accuracy of any facility information shown. Facility locations and conditions are subject to field verification. All fees and charges subject to change without notice.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
SIGNS STOLEN AND ALTERED!!
Thanks to an eagle-eyed friend of our committee for sounding the alarm about missing and altered signs in the Star Lake area. Someone found a 'clever' way to change our signs to a yes vote and marked up dozens of them last night.
But with the quick help of both our group and the Auburn anti-annexation group, most of the signs have been restored to their original message. The over-written signs were easily identifiable as having been altered and anyone looking at them would not be fooled by the vandalism. For the theft and vandalism, the King County Sheriff's office was called and a police report has been filed.
A 3:30am ride through the area made me very proud of the people working on this campaign. Everyone who was aware of the problem quickly pitched in to correct it. I want to thank each of you for your efforts.
But with the quick help of both our group and the Auburn anti-annexation group, most of the signs have been restored to their original message. The over-written signs were easily identifiable as having been altered and anyone looking at them would not be fooled by the vandalism. For the theft and vandalism, the King County Sheriff's office was called and a police report has been filed.
A 3:30am ride through the area made me very proud of the people working on this campaign. Everyone who was aware of the problem quickly pitched in to correct it. I want to thank each of you for your efforts.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Federal Way News 'article' about annexation
Feredal Way News present regurgitated city viewpoint and calls it 'news'. Go to the website and read for yourself how one-sided the 'news' is.
More importantly, you can leave comments. Needless to say, I left a comment and I encourage you to do so. Share this with everyone you know
http://federalwaynews.net/articles/2007/08/14/news/local_news/story02.txt
More importantly, you can leave comments. Needless to say, I left a comment and I encourage you to do so. Share this with everyone you know
http://federalwaynews.net/articles/2007/08/14/news/local_news/story02.txt
Auburn Police remove anti-annexation signs outside of the city!
Check out this article in the News Tribune titled "Police Remove Campaign Signs"
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/auburn/story/132425.html
Here is the story in the Seattle times about the Lea Hill No vote
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003832170&slug=leahill12s&date=20070812
This is big news for Auburn and yet I just read the Auburn Reporter for Wednesday August 15 and there is no mention of any of this in the entire paper. Not one word about the illegal antics of the police! Any mention of the impending annexation vote is positive, including a one-sided 'letter to the editor' page. Looks like you can't expect much fair reporting from that publication.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/auburn/story/132425.html
Here is the story in the Seattle times about the Lea Hill No vote
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003832170&slug=leahill12s&date=20070812
This is big news for Auburn and yet I just read the Auburn Reporter for Wednesday August 15 and there is no mention of any of this in the entire paper. Not one word about the illegal antics of the police! Any mention of the impending annexation vote is positive, including a one-sided 'letter to the editor' page. Looks like you can't expect much fair reporting from that publication.
Another statement against annexation
Connie has prepared a very informative statement for voting NO and we now have it in a digital format.
See it here http://yc2.net/vote_no_annex/index.htm
You are encouraged to share any information you find on our website and also to leave comments about the cause and the content. This is intended to be an informative and interactive site. If you find something of interest that you want to share with us, I may be abe to list and link to it for you.
See it here http://yc2.net/vote_no_annex/index.htm
You are encouraged to share any information you find on our website and also to leave comments about the cause and the content. This is intended to be an informative and interactive site. If you find something of interest that you want to share with us, I may be abe to list and link to it for you.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Flyers in mailboxes??
Urgent message!
We have received an anonymous report that a flyer mentioning this blog was put into a U.S.Mail mailbox. The recipient was extremely upset.
I can assure you that none of the people associated with this committee are putting any flyers in mailboxes and I have no idea who is.
While we are not able to determine when or where this happened, we do not want it to occur again and would appreciate everyone being aware that we do not condone this type of action.
Be advised that putting anything without proper postage into a U.S. Mailbox is a violation of federal law.
Please, do not break any laws trying to get our message out.
Respectfully,
Jerry
We have received an anonymous report that a flyer mentioning this blog was put into a U.S.Mail mailbox. The recipient was extremely upset.
I can assure you that none of the people associated with this committee are putting any flyers in mailboxes and I have no idea who is.
While we are not able to determine when or where this happened, we do not want it to occur again and would appreciate everyone being aware that we do not condone this type of action.
Be advised that putting anything without proper postage into a U.S. Mailbox is a violation of federal law.
Please, do not break any laws trying to get our message out.
Respectfully,
Jerry
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Public Notice Signs - Timely??
What are these "Public Notice" signs cropping up? Is the city really so clueless as to believe that this is the prudent thing to do?
The last public meeting in the PAA that the City of Federal Way sponsored was August 2. The first 'public notice' sign showed up on August 6th. What great timing to insure an informed voter pool.
The postcards were sent, and confused with junk mail, over a month ago. All of the area meetings are over and the city finally gets the bright idea to notify the public?
Or are they just reacting to the sudden influx of Vote NO Annexation signs?
And they call themselves city LEADERS. I think not.
The last public meeting in the PAA that the City of Federal Way sponsored was August 2. The first 'public notice' sign showed up on August 6th. What great timing to insure an informed voter pool.
The postcards were sent, and confused with junk mail, over a month ago. All of the area meetings are over and the city finally gets the bright idea to notify the public?
Or are they just reacting to the sudden influx of Vote NO Annexation signs?
And they call themselves city LEADERS. I think not.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Federal Way Mirror for August 8th
There is a great editorial in the Mirror today. (I may be a little biased)
I was asked by the editor to provide 500 words stating the CON position regarding annexation. It as very difficult to condense the facts and write a cohesive piece, but hopefully you can see the argument in my submission.
The Mirror also asked for someone to write the Pro editorial and we got a rehash of Jon McIntyres idealism right out of the Official Voters Pamphlet.
The accompanying article also had quotes from several people in the PAA. Mr. McIntyre must not have been available to add to that piece.
I was asked by the editor to provide 500 words stating the CON position regarding annexation. It as very difficult to condense the facts and write a cohesive piece, but hopefully you can see the argument in my submission.
The Mirror also asked for someone to write the Pro editorial and we got a rehash of Jon McIntyres idealism right out of the Official Voters Pamphlet.
The accompanying article also had quotes from several people in the PAA. Mr. McIntyre must not have been available to add to that piece.
29 more police "on the street July 1, 2008"? NOT!
The Federal Way Chief of police has said on several occasions that he is going to put 29 more police on the street as soon as annexation is in effect. However, one has to ask where he expects them to come from. For the past several weeks, there have been reports that the city of Seattle, which had planned to hire 24 new officers in the first quarter of this year but managed to find only 9. (The Seattle Times, August 8, 2007)
Money appears to be the main issue but the reality (where have we seen that word before?) is that there are just not that many applicants interested in the job of police officer. Hiring 29 more for the City of Federal Way seems pretty aggressive considering that Seattle was only able to fill one-third of their posted openings.
Consider the reality of the situation as well as the words uttered by the City of Federal Way. VOTE NO!
Money appears to be the main issue but the reality (where have we seen that word before?) is that there are just not that many applicants interested in the job of police officer. Hiring 29 more for the City of Federal Way seems pretty aggressive considering that Seattle was only able to fill one-third of their posted openings.
Consider the reality of the situation as well as the words uttered by the City of Federal Way. VOTE NO!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Federal Way Mirror editorial page
The local newspaper has prepared a story about the Proposed annexation and it is scheduled to appear in the Wednesday August 8th edition.
I have it on good authority that in addition to the article, there is an Op-Ed piece that will be of interest to everyone who visits here.
Should it fail to be printed, I will update this blog with the new publication dates.
I have it on good authority that in addition to the article, there is an Op-Ed piece that will be of interest to everyone who visits here.
Should it fail to be printed, I will update this blog with the new publication dates.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Last public Open House at Rainier View School. I will be there, will you?
Last public Open House
The reality of it all
Facts – The city has a wonderful, colorful and impressive presentation of facts, but expose only those that favorably side with the desire to annex. Here are some additional facts that bring reality to the discussion.
Fact: I am a property owner in the PAA. Opinion: How many of the speakers are going to be affected by the proposed annexation?
Fact: The map shows land, real estate, dirt, firma terra, property. It is a map of an area. Land owners are the ones most affected. Opinion: People that own the land should be the ones deciding the jurisdiction they are controlled by in this land grab.
Fact: Taxes – a city has more taxing authority, methods and avenues than a county and the City of Federal Way proudly states that it taxes every city resident to the maximum allowed by law. The city will tell you that they are taxing at the maximum rate they can. The city council continues to look for ways maximize the city treasury and will impose every tax available at the maximum rate allowed by law, just as they have for the last 5 years on current residents of Federal Way. Fact: Even those few residents who are eligible for rebates of the utility tax first have to pay it, then apply for a rebate. Opinion: The city is hoping you will forget to ask for your money back.
Fact: Residual payment plan after the state tax incentive expires – the city will tell you that they are banking on the ‘income from revenues from the core downtown business area’ to offset the $2.7 million dollar deficit. Sometime between now and August 21st, I want you to take an informative tour of the downtown area.
Drive through the many shopping centers around the Sea-Tac Commons mall area, especially to the west and the north. As you count the number of buildings sitting vacant with for lease signs also note where those business moved to; out of the city and out of King County.
Opinion - It is very difficult to imagine that there is the revenue there that the city says will offset the deficit. The city gets money when business is successful and flourishing. This city looks like a disconnected haphazard collection of mismanaged and unplanned random development that shows all the signs of becoming another has-been roadside attraction. Commercial vacancy rates are soaring and revenues are flat.
Fact: Residences and Property owners are a constant source of predictable revenue. The land in the PAA is sparsely populated and ripe for density transition. The city intends to change zoning in the residential area to reflect greater solid revenue generating resources just by encouraging density. The city will tell you that they are not interested in density. Fact: contrary to the county land use of Residential Uses (Single Family); Vacant Land, however, the city stated in the summary submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board that the City Comprehensive Plan is Residential- Single Family High Density with a City Zoning Primary Use of 8.7 units per acre.
Refer to this link to see the actual wording: http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/annexations/CurrentActions/~/media/B1D5295AD098402089B525AD9612148A.ashx
Opinion: If your property is paying $4000 per year in taxes now, and is one acre, it can be divided into eight separate tax parcels, and each will pay $4000 per year in taxes. This equates to income of $32,000 per acre, which is guaranteed and predictable revenue for the city.
Method of annexation – “Negative response required campaign” – Instead of a proper and direct method of property owners deciding on annexation (the most common method used in King County) the city chose annexation by election.
Several years ago, the state was pressured into passing legislation that did not allow businesses to send you an item without your approval followed by a bill for the item, expecting payment and forcing you to respond with a ‘no’ or accept the item and pay for it. That practice was considered unethical and is now illegal because it forced you to take action or live with consequences you did not want. View that method of selling against the way the city put this measure on the ballot. The city has, to their benefit, not yours, rushed this issue to the ballot and then, with no other recourse than to vote no at the ballot, forced you into accepting their self serving decision. And a brief mention that there is no CON statement in the Official Voters Pamphlet. There is a reason for that. After following required procedure, the council was faced with no eligible person to write PRO or Con statements for the pamphlet so they used a ‘friend of a friend” referral to write the PRO statement but did not pursue the same method for the CON. All of their efforts did not have the balance if a fair and impartial system. They seem very one sided and biased.
Fact: Lifeguards – King County discontinued having lifeguards at Five Mile Lake 5 years ago. The city of Federal Way has five lifeguards at Steel Lake park. There have been three drownings at Steel Lake Park, two of those were this year, when all five lifeguards were on duty and all in the public area. At Five Mile Lake Park, there have been two drownings in the public area. So what is the great benefit of lifeguards?
Source: Federal Way Mirror online.
Opinion: So what is the real benefit of paying for and having lifeguards? I believe that personal responsibility and awareness has replaced depending on lifeguards.
Opinion: Wages – each of the city representative speaking have a personal financial interest in selling the idea of this annexation. The more land/people/responsibility you control, the more money you can demand. If this is approved, watch their wages go up.
Fact: Police – read the newspapers, watch TV and listen to the radio. There have been several reports that there are not enough people wanting to be police officers. The city of Seattle can not find officers to fill current vacancies. The pay is not high enough to attract new recruits. How is the city of Federal Way going to follow through with their stated goal of having 29 new officers on the street July 1, 2008? Fireworks banned in city.
Fact: Clever action by the city to qualify for the money – in order to get the state money for the next ten years, the annexation had to affect a minimum of 20,000 people. With a bit of gerrymandering, and negotiating with Auburn to let them control the road, the city connected the north and south sections of the PAA by the thin line of Peasley Canyon Road to get, you guessed it, just over 20,000 people. Former Assistant City Manager Derek Matheson was quoted in the Federal Way Mirror issue January 31, 2007 as stating, “It is legal and proper. It’s just clever”. Gaining 20,000 residents is key to the city's annexation efforts because it would trigger tax credits of up to $2.8 million from the state for the next 10 years.
By the way, Derek Matheson is no longer with the City of Federal Way. He is now working for the city of Covington. I do not know why he departed.
Opinion: Read that ‘follow the money’ or ‘show me the money’. I disagree that it was ‘proper’ at all and question being governed by this type of self-serving group of policy makers.
Opinion: Rural neighborhood – we all live in this area because it was our choice to have a nice rural setting with lots of space, trees, and less congestion, traffic, noise and fewer restrictions than a city offers. Are you ready to give everything up now? Your neighborhood is in for some drastic changes and none of them are improvements to the way of life we enjoy now.
Read all of the literature offered by the city, look at the reality of a permanent and irreversible annexation decision and I am sure you will find that the negatives grossly outweigh the positives and vote no August 21st.
The reality of it all
Facts – The city has a wonderful, colorful and impressive presentation of facts, but expose only those that favorably side with the desire to annex. Here are some additional facts that bring reality to the discussion.
Fact: I am a property owner in the PAA. Opinion: How many of the speakers are going to be affected by the proposed annexation?
Fact: The map shows land, real estate, dirt, firma terra, property. It is a map of an area. Land owners are the ones most affected. Opinion: People that own the land should be the ones deciding the jurisdiction they are controlled by in this land grab.
Fact: Taxes – a city has more taxing authority, methods and avenues than a county and the City of Federal Way proudly states that it taxes every city resident to the maximum allowed by law. The city will tell you that they are taxing at the maximum rate they can. The city council continues to look for ways maximize the city treasury and will impose every tax available at the maximum rate allowed by law, just as they have for the last 5 years on current residents of Federal Way. Fact: Even those few residents who are eligible for rebates of the utility tax first have to pay it, then apply for a rebate. Opinion: The city is hoping you will forget to ask for your money back.
Fact: Residual payment plan after the state tax incentive expires – the city will tell you that they are banking on the ‘income from revenues from the core downtown business area’ to offset the $2.7 million dollar deficit. Sometime between now and August 21st, I want you to take an informative tour of the downtown area.
Drive through the many shopping centers around the Sea-Tac Commons mall area, especially to the west and the north. As you count the number of buildings sitting vacant with for lease signs also note where those business moved to; out of the city and out of King County.
Opinion - It is very difficult to imagine that there is the revenue there that the city says will offset the deficit. The city gets money when business is successful and flourishing. This city looks like a disconnected haphazard collection of mismanaged and unplanned random development that shows all the signs of becoming another has-been roadside attraction. Commercial vacancy rates are soaring and revenues are flat.
Fact: Residences and Property owners are a constant source of predictable revenue. The land in the PAA is sparsely populated and ripe for density transition. The city intends to change zoning in the residential area to reflect greater solid revenue generating resources just by encouraging density. The city will tell you that they are not interested in density. Fact: contrary to the county land use of Residential Uses (Single Family); Vacant Land, however, the city stated in the summary submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board that the City Comprehensive Plan is Residential- Single Family High Density with a City Zoning Primary Use of 8.7 units per acre.
Refer to this link to see the actual wording: http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/annexations/CurrentActions/~/media/B1D5295AD098402089B525AD9612148A.ashx
Opinion: If your property is paying $4000 per year in taxes now, and is one acre, it can be divided into eight separate tax parcels, and each will pay $4000 per year in taxes. This equates to income of $32,000 per acre, which is guaranteed and predictable revenue for the city.
Method of annexation – “Negative response required campaign” – Instead of a proper and direct method of property owners deciding on annexation (the most common method used in King County) the city chose annexation by election.
Several years ago, the state was pressured into passing legislation that did not allow businesses to send you an item without your approval followed by a bill for the item, expecting payment and forcing you to respond with a ‘no’ or accept the item and pay for it. That practice was considered unethical and is now illegal because it forced you to take action or live with consequences you did not want. View that method of selling against the way the city put this measure on the ballot. The city has, to their benefit, not yours, rushed this issue to the ballot and then, with no other recourse than to vote no at the ballot, forced you into accepting their self serving decision. And a brief mention that there is no CON statement in the Official Voters Pamphlet. There is a reason for that. After following required procedure, the council was faced with no eligible person to write PRO or Con statements for the pamphlet so they used a ‘friend of a friend” referral to write the PRO statement but did not pursue the same method for the CON. All of their efforts did not have the balance if a fair and impartial system. They seem very one sided and biased.
Fact: Lifeguards – King County discontinued having lifeguards at Five Mile Lake 5 years ago. The city of Federal Way has five lifeguards at Steel Lake park. There have been three drownings at Steel Lake Park, two of those were this year, when all five lifeguards were on duty and all in the public area. At Five Mile Lake Park, there have been two drownings in the public area. So what is the great benefit of lifeguards?
Source: Federal Way Mirror online.
Opinion: So what is the real benefit of paying for and having lifeguards? I believe that personal responsibility and awareness has replaced depending on lifeguards.
Opinion: Wages – each of the city representative speaking have a personal financial interest in selling the idea of this annexation. The more land/people/responsibility you control, the more money you can demand. If this is approved, watch their wages go up.
Fact: Police – read the newspapers, watch TV and listen to the radio. There have been several reports that there are not enough people wanting to be police officers. The city of Seattle can not find officers to fill current vacancies. The pay is not high enough to attract new recruits. How is the city of Federal Way going to follow through with their stated goal of having 29 new officers on the street July 1, 2008? Fireworks banned in city.
Fact: Clever action by the city to qualify for the money – in order to get the state money for the next ten years, the annexation had to affect a minimum of 20,000 people. With a bit of gerrymandering, and negotiating with Auburn to let them control the road, the city connected the north and south sections of the PAA by the thin line of Peasley Canyon Road to get, you guessed it, just over 20,000 people. Former Assistant City Manager Derek Matheson was quoted in the Federal Way Mirror issue January 31, 2007 as stating, “It is legal and proper. It’s just clever”. Gaining 20,000 residents is key to the city's annexation efforts because it would trigger tax credits of up to $2.8 million from the state for the next 10 years.
By the way, Derek Matheson is no longer with the City of Federal Way. He is now working for the city of Covington. I do not know why he departed.
Opinion: Read that ‘follow the money’ or ‘show me the money’. I disagree that it was ‘proper’ at all and question being governed by this type of self-serving group of policy makers.
Opinion: Rural neighborhood – we all live in this area because it was our choice to have a nice rural setting with lots of space, trees, and less congestion, traffic, noise and fewer restrictions than a city offers. Are you ready to give everything up now? Your neighborhood is in for some drastic changes and none of them are improvements to the way of life we enjoy now.
Read all of the literature offered by the city, look at the reality of a permanent and irreversible annexation decision and I am sure you will find that the negatives grossly outweigh the positives and vote no August 21st.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)