City of Burien to hold two public hearings on possible tax increases Nov. 4 & 18

Print This Post  Email This Post

The City of Burien announced Wednesday (Oct. 23) that it will hold public hearings on two dates – Monday, Nov. 4, and Monday, Nov. 18 – for “the purpose of receiving the public’s comments on revenue sources, including a possible increase of up to 1% in property tax revenue, and expenditures for the 2013-2014 Mid-Biennial Budget review and amendments.”

“The $63,000 increase would be spread out among all Burien property owners,” the city added.

The hearings will be held in the Burien Council Chambers (400 SW 152nd Street) starting at approximately 7 p.m.

The 2013-2014 Mid-Biennial Budget Review will be available on Nov. 1, 2013 on the City’s website,, or copies can be obtained by calling the Finance Department at (206) 439-3150.

Sign language and communication in alternate format can be arranged given sufficient notice. Please contact the City Clerk’s office at (206) 248-5517.

Print This Post  Email This Post


11 Responses to “City of Burien to hold two public hearings on possible tax increases Nov. 4 & 18”
  1. Do my eyes deceive me? For the last six months at the Burien Council meetings all I have heard was how well Burien was doing financially and that the no-annexation side’s concern’s about Burien finances was completely wrong.

    Isn’t it interesting how this issue is to be discussed after everyone has voted? Also remember that Rose Clark, Joan McGilton, Brian Bennett, and Gerald Robinson voted to increase taxes on the eve of Election Day last November.

    • Chris says:

      Geez, calm down. They do this every year when they set their levy rate. By LAW they are authorized to make a levy rate adjustment not to exceed ONE PERCENT. This is the limitation imposed by I-747 (Tim Eyeman initiative).

      This is nothing new and they make this announcement EVERY year, and it is required that they inform the citizens and allow them to comment.

      Nice try in attempting to turn this into political fodder though. LAME!

      • SeanK says:

        Yeah Chris you are right. We don’t pay enough taxes, what’s the big deal with anither 1%. Giv me a break you should be ashamed of yourself.

        • Burienite says:

          Your response is laughable. If the AV of the area went DOWN and the city took the 1% they are allowed to take (by law), then they would like be levying LESS money from the property owners. People see a snipit about the city holding a meeting to discuss a POTENTIAL increase in the levy rate, yet they don’t fully understand what that implies. Even IF AV went up, a 1 % increase is almost immaterial when spreading across the board.

          Before I-747, taxing jurisdictions were allowed to levy 106% of the previous year. Now THAT is a big deal. So if you had rising AV, you could really stick it to the taxpayers.

  2. Maxine says:

    They had to raise taxes to pay for all of Jack Block’s junkets. You’ll be paying plenty more taxes when you soon become part of Seattle.

  3. Maxine says:

    Do you mean for Jack “Junket” Block? I’ve heard of Boston, Arizona, Reno, and a few others. $33,000 can pay for some awfully nice vacations at Burien taxpayer’s expense.

    • SD says:

      Maxine, I’m not sure how business travel is assigned among the Council members or who ultimately approves such trips, but I trust there are per diems in place to ensure travel expenses are reasonable…and stay within the budgeted amount.

    • TbC says:

      Jack was most likely trying to find more money for them” F—ing cops” Give it up Maxine.

    • SD says:

      Maxine, I understand where you’re coming from now. I just read the article written by the Highline Times this past July. I agree $33K is significant, although not as significant if you consider it was incurred over an eight year period. If you take issue with the amount allocated to the City’s travel budget, then the entire Council should be held accountable and those who approve the Council’s travel. When you mentioned cheerleaders, I thought Jack had attended a game of some sorts. It sounds like he was at a conference and the conference hosts provided cheerleaders for a photo op. Having attended many conferences, it’s very common for the host to invite local celebrities. In this case, it appears the host chose the Cardinal cheerleaders v. the players themselves.

  4. John Farrar says:

    People can not be taxed on their own property- They have to give it away to the state FIRST. Once they have done that then taxes can be assessed. This is done by deceit & hiding the agreement in the mortgage papers.
    It’s called “split title” – One “owner” is the legal owner & the other is an “equitable owner.
    The evidence of the split title is an address ( #6
    Before civil confiscation of property homes were know by names like the “Hermitage”, “Mount Vernon” & “Monticello”. Jackson, Washington & Jefferson knew better than to give away their homes.
    In modern times the shadow of the fraud can be seen in places like RCW 65.12.220 ( “… shall be deemed an agreement running with the land and binding upon the applicant…”
    If you have an address you are a tenant in possession – nothing more.
    Cognitive dissonance is profoundly difficult to overcome. Good luck 🙂

Share Your Opinion

By participating in our online comment system, you are agreeing to abide by the terms of our comment policy.

...and oh, if you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!