Choose Renton Blog

Vote YES on Annexation!

2010-10-14T20:08:00.000-07:00

Ballots are in the mail this week. Remember to vote YES on annexation into Renton!

Here's the King County Municipal League's endorsement:

http://www.munileague.org/fairwood.pdf

Here's the Renton Reporter's Endorsement:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/opinion/104980244.html

BRB unanimously approves annexation

2010-04-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

Last Monday night was the hearing before the BRB regarding the proposed annexation of Fairwood. Compared to the incorporation public hearings last May, it was pretty subdued. After some conversation about changing a boundary on the south end of the Fairwood PAA, the BRB unanimously approved the annexation, which means that it goes on the ballot this November.

You can read more about the hearing at these links:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/news/88957792.html

http://www.fairwoodcommunitynews.com/2010/3.10March/3.23.10BRBApprovesAnnexation.html

The bottom line is that after years of hard work, we're finally going to have a chance to annex. Let's make it happen!

The latest

2010-03-07T19:53:00.000-08:00

So...it's been awhile. You're probably wondering what's the latest news about Fairwood?

Well, a lot has happened in the last few months. The Renton City Council voted to place annexation of Fairwood into Renton on the ballot in November of 2010. You probably remember reading previously about how there were two different pending annexation proposals in the Fairwood area: Red Mill (a petition method annexation), and the Greater Fairwood Communities Annexation (which would require a public vote). Rather than proceed with two separate annexations, the City Council decided to go with one. It covers all of Fairwood, and it will only happen if a majority votes to annex at the polls.

Renton also recently voted to join the King County Library System. A big concern many people had with annexation into Renton was that they were not part of KCLS -- they operated their own libraries. That's no longer the case. So if we annex into Renton, we'll continue to be a part of KCLS.

Finally, there is a public meeting being held by the King County Boundary Review Board in two weeks regarding the proposed annexation of Fairwood. Go to the following site for details:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/annexations/HearingsAndMeetings/20100322Fairwood.aspx

Make sure to show up and support annexation!

Final Results

2009-11-27T22:14:00.000-08:00

King County certified the election this week. The final results are:

FOR
3907
45.53%

AGAINST
4674
54.47%

There's already activity on the annexation front. Renton is considering passing a resultion to put annexation of the entire Fairwood area on the ballot. More on that soon...

Great new Seattle Times Editorial

2009-11-10T20:11:00.001-08:00

Renton and Fairwood: Ahead of the Curve Together

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2010244800_edit11annex.html

Check it out!

We Did It!

2009-11-07T22:28:00.000-08:00

Vote Fairwood has conceded on their website that incorporation has been defeated. It took a ton of work by a whole bunch of dedicated people, but in the end, we won.

Incorporation proponents had twice as much money as we did, they had more time to prepare, and we won anyway. How did we do it? We worked extremely hard, and we told the truth. In the end, money and untrue scare tactics couldn't defeat hard work and the truth.

The public has now twice spoken on the issue of incorporation. We've made it abundantly clear that we do not want a city of Fairwood. I respect those on the other side who believed passionately in their cause. But it's now time to respect the will of the voters, and allow those of us that believe annexation is the best possible option for Fairwood to move forward. Let's get it done as quickly as possible, so we can become a part of a city that will allow us significantly higher service levels, while paying less in taxes. Let's choose Renton!

Later 11/6 update

2009-11-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

FOR
3384
45.47%

AGAINST
4059
54.53%

What's been happening with each of these updates is that the percentage of no votes has gone down, but it's still been more no than yes votes for each update.

11/6 results update

2009-11-06T19:13:00.000-08:00

FOR
3095
45.39%

AGAINST
3723
54.61%

While the percentage got slightly narrower, the gap in the number of votes increased. If things keep going the way they have been, it'll be over in a day or two.

11/5 results update

2009-11-05T21:20:00.000-08:00

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200911/Respage61.aspx

For
2679
45.21%

Against
3247
54.79%

Not as good as the first night, but there were still more no votes than yes in the latest update. Let's hope this continues...

A good start

2009-11-04T06:14:00.000-08:00

As I posted last night, so far it's 56.90% no, 43.10% yes. That's obviously a good start. I'm not going to get ahead of myself and assume that we've won this thing, though. Since this is an all-mail election, it's hard to judge how things will go from here. But I'm definitely happy with the way things have gone so far.

You can look at the ballot return statistics here:

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/abstats/

The count from yesterday was of 4027 ballots. We're now up to 5092 ballots received from the Fairwood incorporation area. So we'll have a little over 1000 more votes counted for the results that are released today. Check back at the results website at 4:30 pm for an update. There will then be updates at 4:30 pm every day for the next three weeks.

Hopefully things will continue the way they have gone so far.

Election Results (so far)

2009-11-03T21:50:00.000-08:00

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200911/Respage61.aspx

So far, it's 56.90% no, 43.10% yes. Next update will be posted at 4:30 pm tomorrow.

Get out and vote tomorrow!

2009-11-02T21:09:00.000-08:00

Make sure to have your ballot postmarked by tomorrow. And make sure to get out and vote against incorporation!

http://www.govoteno.org

Fire District 40's (and Fairwood's) 2010 tax increase

2009-11-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

I previously posted about the Fire District 40 meeting that took place on October 20th. The question I had for the commissioners was what the effective property tax rate would be for FD 40 in 2010 when you combine the fire benefit charge with FD 40’s regular levy. In 2009, the effective rate was $1.47 per $1000 AV.

At the meeting, a Power Point presentation was displayed that outlined the district’s finances for 2010. It’s available at the FD 40 website here:

http://www.fd40.com/District%20Finances.ppt

If you look at slide 11 of that presentation, it tells you what the district’s budget was in 2009, and what the proposed budget is for 2010.

On King County’s website, there’s information for the 2009 tax revenues for all fire districts. It has the levy rate, total tax collected, and total assessed valuation. You can read that information here:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/Reports/2009AnnualReport/~/media/Assessor/AnnualReports/2009/TaxStats/09Fire.ashx

You’ll see that FD 40’s rate in the above document is $1.22 per $1000 AV. That includes the bond measure used to pay for the new fire station on Benson Rd., which I’m not including for the purposes of this post, since it’s dedicated to capital projects.

Here’s the district’s numbers for 2009:

Property Taxes ($1.00 per $1000 AV levy)
$2,614,432
Fire Benefit Charge
$1,234,764
Total Assessed Valuation
$2,625,061,546
Effective Property Tax Rate
$1.47 per $1000 AV

You’ll note that the district collected less than $1.00 per $1000 AV based on the total assessed value. The collections were off by about 4%, which is probably the rate of delinquency.

Here’s the same numbers for 2010:

Property Taxes ($1.00 per $1000 AV levy)
$2,194,233
Fire Benefit Charge
$1,678,717
Total Assessed Valuation
$2,195,551,453

Here’s the total effective property tax rate for FD 40 for 2010:

2010 Effective Property Tax Rate
$1.76 per $1000 AV

The only part of the 2010 numbers not available is the total AV for FD 40. I get the total AV based on what was apparently said at the 10/29/09 meeting, which was that the total AV of the district has dropped by 16.4% (I wasn't there, and heard that number secondhand).

Anyway, it’s a lot of math. But the bottom line is this:

2009: $1.47 per $1000 AV effective property tax rate
2010: $1.76 per $1000 AV effective property tax rate

That means that FD 40’s effective property tax rate is 19.73% higher in 2010 than it was in 2009. I’m not saying that’s the wrong decision – it may well be the right one – but we need to be clear about what that decision is. For FD 40 to maintain existing services, we are going to have to pay higher taxes – a nearly 20% increase in the effective tax rate.

Remember, Renton has been criticized by Vote Fairwood for temporarily reducing staffing due to the economy. Renton has opted to not increase taxes in the face of one of the worst economic climates in decades. Vote Fairwood has championed FD 40's approach.

What’s that mean for the proposed city of Fairwood? FD 40 had to raise taxes 19.73% higher in 2010 to maintain existing services. If Fairwood incorporates, it’ll have to do the same.

Vote against higher taxes. Vote against incorporation.

Get out and vote!

2009-11-01T10:24:00.001-08:00

Make sure to have your ballot postmarked by Tuesday, November 3rd. Vote against incorporation!

Renton Reporter article on the Section 8 lie

2009-10-27T21:50:00.001-07:00

The Renton Reporter just published an article regarding the property in the Red Mill area owned by the RHA. You can read it here:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/news/66706282.html

As you can see, the RHA isn't going to build 400 houses on the property, because they can't. Even Joe Giberson, the leader of Vote Fairwood, acknowledges in the article that the RHA can't build that many units on the property without transferring development rights from other properties -- which isn't going to happen.

What's that mean? When Vote Fairwood put out its fliers claiming that Renton was going to build 400 Section 8 apartments, they knew it was a lie all along. Remember that when you vote.

The completely bogus advertisment in the October Fairwood Flyer

2009-10-25T19:42:00.000-07:00

You can always tell when it's the end of campaign season and desperation sets in. Based on the October Fairwood Flyer, we've clearly reached that point.

Lots of people in the Fairwood area read the Fairwood Flyer. A two page advertisment was placed in the October issue, written by Sam Shirley. I think if people want to vote for a new city of Fairwood, that's fine. But they should do so once they've made a reasonable conclusion based on the facts, not based on distortions and outright falsehoods. Because that's what Sam's article is completely full of.

Let's take a few of them piece by piece.

Fairwood's Surplus

First, he claims that Renton expects a surplus from Fairwood. They don't. See here for their budget analysis:

http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/AJLS/Annexation/PAA%20Fiscal%20Analysis%20-%203.pdf

See those red numbers on p.1? Those indicate deficits. So when Sam says that Renton expects a surplus if it annexes Fairwood, he's not telling the truth.

Tax Rates

Then the ad goes on to say that State of Washington sets property tax rates for cities, and that "municipalities lack the taxing authority to raise your property taxes." This is completely, utterly false. It's so fundamentally basic that local governments set their own property tax rates that it's laughable to claim otherwise. The State has nothing to do with it. Take a look at my previous posting on this blog on property taxes and you'll see a wide variation in property tax rates for all of the cities in King County. Each city council has determined what its property tax rates should be. And as a part of Renton, we'd have significantly lower property taxes than if we incorporated as a city of Fairwood.

Police Staffing

The ad claims that we'll have lower levels of police service as part of Renton. Renton's going to hire 26 officers to serve Fairwood, where Fairwood would only be able to hire 15 deputies (at the most) to serve the city through the King County Sheriff's Office. I'm not the brightest guy in the world, but I'm pretty sure that 26 cops is more than 15.

Addresses

The ad even goes so far as to claim that Renton would make us change our addresses if we annexed. Of course, Renton changed this policy years ago, so none of our addresses would change. Just drive around Benson Hill or Maple Ridge Estates -- both of which recently annexed to Renton -- and see for yourself.

Section 8 Apartments

Worst of all is the ad's complete dishonesty about the RHA. The ad repeats the bogus 400 Section 8 apartment nonsense that I've previously posted about. Sam goes on to claim that he attended a Fairwood Greens meeting where the RHA said that they were going to build low income housing in Fairwood. Here's the direct quote from the ad he wrote (emphasis mine):

"When the RHA purchased the property they attended a Fairwood Greens HOA meeting and explained they were going to construct low income housing. I was personally in attendance at that meeting."

Here's the minutes from that meeting:

http://www.fairwoodgreens.org/Meetings/meeting022707.htm

Let me quote the Fairwood Greens HOA minutes directly:

"Mark Gropper, Executive Director of the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) provided the following information. The RHA is totally separate from the City of Renton. They are not city employees. The land south of Red Mill became available the 1st of May 2006 and was sold in mid-July. The appraised value was $3.1 million and sold for $1.5 million. There are no plans for development at this time as RHA is presently working on developing the Renton Highlands area. The land has been banked for future affordable housing for mid income housing, not low income housing. The RHA will hire a consulting firm to evaluate the best use of land and will hold public meetings sometime in the next 2-3 years. Informational website: http://www.rentonhousing.org/."

If you're going to lie, you probably shouldn't do it about a meeting where minutes were taken.

But that's the advertisment in a nutshell. Complete fabrication after fabrication. It's unfortunate when political campaigns resort to lying, but here we are. Don't fall victim to scare tactics. It's up to us to put a stop to it -- and we can do that by voting no on incorporation.

Fire District 40 meeting this past Tuesday

2009-10-24T22:36:00.001-07:00

I attended and spoke at the Fire District 40 meeting this past Tuesday night. The Fire District has two main revenue sources: a $1.00 per $1000 Assessed Valuation property tax levy, and a benefit service charge that is based on a complicated formula that probably requires an advanced math degree to understand. The total assessed value for Fire District 40 has declined significantly from 2009 to 2010 -- it's a total decline of right around 20%. That means that property tax revenues have also declined by about 20%.

So Fire District 40 was faced with a choice: maintain the benefit charge at 2009 levels and face cuts in staffing, or increase it to make up for the property tax shortfall to keep service levels as they are. They apparently have decided to do the latter.

I'm not saying that's the wrong choice, but I do think we all need to understand what it means. Fire District 40 is having to increase taxes to maintain its present levels of service. It can't pay for the same level of staffing that it's had in the past without a tax increase. The City of Fairwood would be no different. If FD 40 can't pay for existing services without increasing taxes, than neither can Fairwood.

Vote against a city that will raise your taxes. Vote against incorporation.

Covington's budget problems

2009-10-19T22:05:00.001-07:00

Here's an article on the budget problems facing the City of Covington:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/cmv/news/64330307.html

The title? "Tight times force cuts in the Covington 2010 budget"

One of the main points of the article is that Covington's capital investment fund -- the fund that pays for things like road construction -- will be out of money in 2011. That fund relies on revenues from the construction and sale of new homes, revenues that come from things like the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) and transportation impact fees. What Covington is finding is that this revenue isn't going to be there.

And it wouldn't be there in Fairwood, either. That means we'd have no money to pay for new capital projects like roads and buildings.

Vote against a city without sufficient funding to pay for our roads. Vote against incorporation.

The hilariously over the top dishonesty of Vote Fairwood

2009-10-18T07:55:00.000-07:00

You may have seen at the corner of 140th and Petrovitsky Road a large yellow and black billboard that says "Support your local IAFF firefighters -- vote against Fairwood Incorporation." That sign was paid for and put there by your local Fairwood firefighters. They belong to IAFF Local 864 (http://www.iaff864.org/), who oppose the proposed Fairwood incorporation.

So what has now appeared next to the firefighters' billboard? A sign from Vote Fairwood that claims that voting for incorporation will save firefighters' jobs. Voting against incorporation means that our fire services stay exactly as they are now -- and nobody's job is lost. Vote Fairwood knows this, and knows that the firefighters don't support incorporation, so they're trying to confuse the public by not telling you the truth.

And then the day this new sign appeared, I get the latest Vote Fairwood flyer in my mailbox. It actually cracked me up. It's main claims? "No one believes the oppositions figures" and that "not one expert agreed with their findings."

First off, the figures that I've used to repeatedly criticize the feasibility study are the figures that are in the study! So if incorporation proponents are saying that nobody believes the figures I'm throwing out, they're essentially saying that their own study's figures aren't believable. I'm glad they've finally agreed with my criticism. Maybe their next flyer can say acknowledge that they now apparently think the feasibilty study isn't credible, like I've been saying all along.

But more importantly, there has been one disinterested third party that reviewed the proposed incorporation: The King County Municipal League. Let me tell you a little story about how that process worked. The Municipal League contacted me and asked me to come talk to them about the proposed incorporation. So I took a day off work and went to their office in downtown Seattle. There were three of us from the no side who met with the Muni League. While we were waiting, three incorporation supporters walked out of the Muni League offices, having just met with them. I waved hi at them as they left, and they waved at me. The Muni League met with us, reviewed the data, and came to the conclusion that Fairwood is not financially feasible. They found that revenue estimates are too high, and cost estimates are too low. Their position? Annexation to Renton is the best possible option for Fairwood. You can read their recommendation here:

http://www.munileague.org/issues/ballot-issues-archive/ballot-issue-reports/nov-2009-incorporation-of-city-of-fairwood

The point to this story? When Vote Fairwood puts out a flyer saying nobody believes incorporation opponents, that no independent experts agree with us, they're not telling the truth. They were at the Muni League at the same time we were! It's not like they don't know the Muni League's opinion -- Vote Fairwood just rather be dishonest with the public than tell the truth.

In the end, the experts that matter are the voters. That's why we were willing to have a forum where the real experts -- the public -- could ask questions of supporters and opponents of incorporation. King County and Renton would have people there, so that people could get accurate first-hand info. Vote Fairwood refused to participate. Why? It's really easy to make all sorts of claims, but it's much harder to back them up to you, in public. I was willing to do it. They weren't.

Remember that when you vote. And then vote against incorporation.

Interesting news story on the City of Newcastle

2009-10-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

Just to the north of us is the City of Newcastle. King 5 recently did a story on their budget problems, which are largely the result of a reliance on the permitting, construction, and sale of new homes. Check it out here:

http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=404869

Sound familiar? A city that largely relies on the real estate market is facing significant budget issues. It's exactly what would happen here in Fairwood if we voted to incorporate.

Vote against a city that is destined to fail. Vote against incorporation.

Forum for proponents and opponents of incorporation

2009-10-02T06:19:00.000-07:00

One of the things that's been asked of me repeatedly is when there will be a meeting that allows both sides to present their case and answer questions from the public. I think it's a great idea. We were contacted by a neutral person willing to moderate such an event. I, of course, am completely willing to attend any such event to get information out to the public about why I think annexation is the better option, and therefore why I think incorporation is a bad idea. There are pluses and minuses on every issue and I'm fine with telling all of you exactly what they are in a public setting.

King County and the City of Renton also agreed to send representatives to the meeting to answer questions from the public about the various options on the table. But when incorporation proponents were contacted, they refused to participate.

If you read the information being provided by incorporation proponents, one of their claims is that those of us opposed to incorporation cannot back up our statements with facts. That's not true, and I'm willing to say so in public at a meeting in front of the Fairwood community. I'm not afraid of the truth, and I'm not afraid to back everything I say up in front of you. They, unfortunately, are not willing to do the same.

When you have to run a city, you're going to have to deal with the public. You're going to have to deal with people that you don't agree with. Incorporation proponents won't even back up their claims in front of a public forum now, before we've got a city. Are these the people you want running your government? And if they're not willing to back up their facts in front of you, can you really believe what they're saying is true?

Vote against incorporation.

Maple Valley's 2010 budget

2009-09-29T06:36:00.000-07:00

Recently the Maple Valley/Covington Reporter published an article on Maple Valley's 2010 budget issues. You can read it here:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/cmv/news/59535842.html

What you'll see in the article is that Maple Valley is facing budget problems because of a significant reduction in the number of new homes that are being built in the area. That means less sales tax, less real estate excise tax, and less permitting fees than they anticipated.

Sound familiar?

What's happening in Maple Valley is exactly what would happen in Fairwood -- there simply isn't going to be the tax revenue from new homes that is assumed to flow to the city in the incorporation feasbility study. Fairwood's budget would be largely reliant on the construction and sale of new homes to have sufficient revenues to break even. We know from Maple Valley's experience that these tax revenues aren't going to be there. Incorporation proponents have overestimated revenues, which means if we incorporate, Fairwood isn't going to have enough money to survive.

It's yet another example of how incorporation proponents' assumptions don't reflect reality. Vote against incorporation.

King County Muni League recommends against incorporation

2009-09-27T20:03:00.000-07:00

One of the questions that people have been asking me recently is whether any neutral third parties have taken a look at the incorporation debate and reached a conclusion, whether it be pro or con. The answer to that question is now yes. The King County Municipal League, a nonpartisan good-government organization, took a look at whether incorporation of the City of Fairwood was a good idea. Their recommendation? That we vote no.

Check out their decision here: http://www.munileague.org/issues/ballot-issues-archive/ballot-issue-reports/nov-2009-incorporation-of-city-of-fairwood

What does the Muni League recommend for Fairwood? That we annex to Renton.

Yet another reason to vote against incorporation.

How Fairwood could significantly increase property taxes

2009-09-09T20:57:00.001-07:00

Following up on my last posting about property taxes, one of the things that's interesting to me is that the pro-incorporation website says that Fairwood could levy no more than $1.60 per $1000 AV in property taxes should we vote to incorporate. That's not true. Here's why.

Take a look at Washington Administrative Code 458-19-080 here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-19-080

This WAC provides an explanation for how the property tax system in a city works. A city can levy a maximum of $3.60 per $1000 AV. That $3.60 included both fire services and library services. If a city annexes into a library or fire district, the city's property tax levy is reduced by a pro rata share of whatever is levied by the library or fire district.

Take Fairwood as an example, and assume for the sake of argument as proponents do that it would annex into the King County Library System and Fire District 40. KCLS presently has a levy of $.36 per $1000 AV. Fire District 40 has a levy of $1.00 per $1000 AV. That means Fairwood's maximum property tax levy would be reduced by the sum total of these two districts: $1.36 per $1000 AV. So the maximum levy that could be used by the City of Fairwood is $2.24 per $1000 AV (3.60-1.36).

In other words, when incorporation proponents claim on their website that the maximum allowable levy that Fairwood could use would be $1.60 per $1000 AV, they either don't know what they're talking about, or they aren't telling the truth. Given that an incorporation proponent said at the BRB meeting that Fairwood would have excess property tax levy capacity available if revenues weren't sufficient, you be the judge of whether it's the former or the latter.

When revenues aren't what the feasibility study says they'll be, Fairwood's city property tax rate could rise up to $2.24 per $1000 AV. That would burden us with the highest property taxes in King County -- a combined effective property tax rate of $3.64 per $1000 AV for city services. That's a whopping 42% higher than the City of Renton's property tax rate. And given the fact that the revenue assumptions made by proponents are largely based on the now-dead housing boom, revenues will have to be made up somewhere. All this for lower levels of service than we can get from Renton.

That's incorporation in a nutshell: higher taxes, lower services. A disaster waiting to happen. Vote no.

Fairwood Property Tax Comparison

2009-09-06T07:22:00.000-07:00

On a whim, I went back and dug around King County’s list of property tax rates for every city in King County. I decided to do a comparison of the rates of every city in the county (go to http://www.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/~/media/Assessor/PropertyTaxes/RateBook09.ashx for rates). The proposed City of Fairwood winds up at the top of the list.

To make a fair comparison, you have to combine the fire district and city tax rates in those cities that have annexed into fire districts, as Fairwood’s proponents plan to do. You also have to factor in a fire benefit charge for those fire districts that levy them. In Fairwood, the fire benefit charge is effectively a property tax levy for my house of $.40 per $1000 assessed valuation, meaning a total fire levy of $1.40 per $1000 AV.

There are two fire districts in King County covering a city that levy a fire benefit charge: Northshore and Woodinville. Northshore Fire District covers the cities of Kenmore and Lake Forest Park. Woodinville covers (obviously) Woodinville. Their total property tax levies (including the fire benefit charge) are $1.48 and $1.50 per $1000 AV respectively. (Note: it appears that King County Fire District 10 may levy a benefit charge, but I can’t figure out how much it is, so I’m leaving the city of Carnation out of the calculations below.)

The Valley Regional Fire Authority (covering Auburn, Algona, and Pacific) also levies a fire benefit charge. The total effective property tax rate for the fire authority there is $1.94 per $1000 AV.

When you do all of that, here’s the property tax rates per $1000 assessed valuation for every city in King County when fire services are included:

1. Auburn $3.43
2. Algona $3.32
3. Pacific $3.04
4. Black Diamond $3.02
5. Fairwood (as proposed): $3.00
6. Des Moines $2.92
7. Burien $2.70
8. Duvall $2.68
9. Kenmore $2.67
10. Lake Forest Park $2.62
11. Woodinville $2.52
12. Covington $2.48
13. Shoreline $2.45
14. Normandy Park $2.42
15. Tukwila $2.37
16. Maple Valley $2.34
16. Seatac $2.34
18. Kent $2.13
18. Renton (minus library) $2.13
20. Snoqualmie $2.10
21. Sammamish $2.04
22. Enumclaw $1.81
23. Newcastle $1.69
24. Skykomish $1.63
25. Seattle $1.61
26. Milton $1.52
27. Redmond $1.33
28. North Bend $1.22
29. Bothell $1.18
30. Beaux Arts $1.07
31. Kirkland $1.03
32. Issaquah $0.96
33. Mercer Island $0.91
34. Bellevue $0.82
35. Medina $0.75
36. Yarrow Point $0.54
37. Clyde Hill $0.51
38. Hunts Point $0.30

(note: my initial version of this post accidentally left out Covington -- I've since fixed the error)

Note Renton's rank on this list. It's got one of the lowest property tax rates in South King County, while simultaneously providing a significantly higher level of service than the proposed City of Fairwood.

If you look at cities that don't have their own fire department, and have a separate entity levying property taxes for fire services, Fairwood would have the highest property tax rates in King County for this group.

1. Fairwood $1.60
2. Black Diamond $1.52
3. Auburn $1.49
4. Des Moines $1.42
5. Algona $1.38
6. Burien $1.26
7. Duvall $1.33
8. Kenmore $1.19
9. Lake Forest Park $1.14
10. Pacific $1.10
11. Maple Valley $1.08
12. Carnation $1.04
13. Woodinville $1.02
14. Normandy Park $0.98
14. Covington $0.98
16. Federal Way $0.97
17. Shoreline $0.95

Why should we form a city that would levy the highest property tax rate of anybody not having a fire department, while simultaneously having the lowest service levels in the county? Especially when there's a cheaper, better option: annexation to Renton. Incorporation just doesn't make sense. Vote against the proposed City of Fairwood.

More on the RHA lie

2009-09-02T18:51:00.001-07:00

Here's some additional maps showing Renton's proposed zoning for the Fairwood Potential Annexation Area. When Renton was last updating its zoning, they decided to go ahead and pre-zone the areas not in the city, but in their Potential Annexation Area. This makes a lot of sense, because if an area should annex, city planners don't have to do additional zoning work -- it's already done. Plus it allows people who are on the fence about annexation to see what their neighborhoods would look like in the City of Renton.

Here's Renton's map of the entire city and its PAAs:

http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/maps/pdf/City%20Maps/Comprehensive%20Land%20Use.pdf

The Fairwood area is obviously at the lower right side of that map.

You're probably asking yourself, "what does Residential Low Density (RLD)" mean? That's what Renton's zoning uses for most of Fairwood. RLD means that an area is zoned to have 4 single family homes per acre or less. Here's a glossary of the different terms:

http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/LU%20Designation%20Descriptions.pdf

Take a look at the following map that shows more specific numbers throughout the city:

http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/maps/pdf/City%20Maps/Zoning.pdf

Now compare the two. What you'll see is that all of the areas zoned RLD on the first map are R-4 or lower density. Almost all of the Fairwood PAA would have this zoning with the City of Renton, including the properties owned by the RHA.

I was actually corrected and told that the RHA properties total 16 acres. Under Renton's zoning, that means the RHA would be able to build a maximum of 64 homes on these properties.

What does this have to do with incorporation? When incorporation proponents claim that annexation of Fairwood into Renton is going to cause the RHA to build hundreds of Section 8 apartments, it's a lie, and they know it.

Don't fall victim to scare tactics that aren't based in reality or supported by the facts. Vote no on incorporation.

Fairwood = higher property taxes than Renton

2009-08-26T18:21:00.000-07:00

One of the questions I've gotten before is about property taxes, and how they'd compare between Fairwood and Renton. Property taxes tend to be insanely complicated, but if you look at them in some detail, you'll see that Fairwood's property taxes would be significantly higher than Renton's.

The way you compare property tax burdens between jurisdictions is by comparing the rates. Go to the following website to see the rates for every King County government:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/~/media/Assessor/PropertyTaxes/RateBook09.ashx

In Renton, the city’s rate is $2.36923 per $1000 of assessed valuation. Renton is a full service city, which means that it pays for its library system out of its general property tax levy. Fairwood would be part of the King County Library System, which is funded by a separate levy. So to do a true apples to apples comparison, you have to cut out the portion of Renton’s property tax levy that goes to libraries. That’s $.24 per $1000 AV, which means you use the rate of $2.12923 per $1000 for Renton when comparing it to Fairwood.

The feasibility study assumes that Fairwood would use a $1.60 per $1000 AV levy. At first glance, that appears to be lower than Renton. But again, when you do an apples to apples comparison, it’s not. You have to factor in King County Fire District 40’s levy alongside of Fairwood, since Renton’s levy covers fire services, where Fairwood’s does not. Fire District 40 has a $1.00 per $1000 AV levy. If you add that to Fairwood, you come up with $2.60 per $1000 AV.

But there’s more. FD 40 also utilizes what’s called a Benefit Charge. This is calculated by a complicated formula that takes into account square footage of your home, whether it’s sprinklered, and on and on. Fire Districts give up $.50 per $1000 AV of their regular property tax levy to use a benefit charge. It's basically a replacement for a portion of the property tax. My house is valued at $379,000, and I pay $153.30 in fire benefit charges this year. If you view that charge as a property tax levy, it’s effectively a levy of $.40 per $1000 AV.

So here’s how a real apples to apples comparison of property tax levies between Fairwood and Renton would break down:

Fairwood: $3.00 per $1000 AV

Renton: $2.13 per $1000 AV

In other words, Fairwood’s property taxes would be 29% higher than Renton’s. And we'd get lower levels of service with Fairwood than with Renton.

Why pay more and get less? Vote no on incorporation.

The RHA/Section 8 lie

2009-08-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

Recently incorporation proponents have been claiming publicly that if the area annexes to the City of Renton, the Renton Housing Authority will build 500 units of low income housing in the Fairwood area. They then say that by incorporating as a separate city of Fairwood we can prevent any low income housing from being built in the Fairwood area. Neither claim is true.

First, a little background. The RHA is technically not part of the City of Renton. It’s a separate agency. I’m not exactly sure how the governance model works, but the RHA operates independently of the City of Renton. So let’s not conflate the two.

The RHA owns two parcels of property west of 140th Ave. SE and south of Petrovitsky in unincorporated Fairwood. They total about 20 acres, and are zoned R4 and R6 by King County. Zoning classified with an R is residential. That’s pretty self explanatory, and in the case of the property owned by the RHA means that the owner could conceivably build either 4 or 6 houses per acre. Let’s use the higher number for both properties, just for the sake of argument. Multiply 20 acres by 6 homes per acre, and you get a maximum of 120 homes. That’s single family homes – not apartments. Under King County’s zoning, you can fit a few more, but nowhere near 500.

You can see information on the two parcels at the following websites:

http://www5.kingcounty.gov/kcgisreports/property_report.aspx?PIN=3423059062
http://www5.kingcounty.gov/kcgisreports/property_report.aspx?PIN=3323059034

The Deputy Executive Director of the RHA, Mark Gropper, actually addressed these rumors in comment threads on http://www.fairwoodcommunitynews.com/ and http://www.rentonreporter.com/. You can see his comments at the following address:

http://www.fairwoodcommunitynews.com/2009/2_Feb09/2.18.09FairwoodIncorporationMeeting_Feb9.html

Mark explained how the Section 8 system works better than I can. The bottom line is that the RHA is not going to build 500 Section 8 apartments. That’s coming directly from the person at the RHA who would actually be in charge of building these apartments.

To get these 500 units, the RHA would have to be secretly applying for a change in zoning of their property, which would have secretly been granted, which only incorporation proponents know about. And they would have to have secretly obtained funding that no one but incorporation proponents know about. And they’d have to be lying to the public, which only incorporation proponents know about.

Or there’s a more logical explanation: the RHA can’t build 500 units on the property they have, because it’s not zoned for that. And we also know they're not going to build 500 section 8 apartments because they've said so publicly. So when you hear incorporation proponents claiming that the RHA is going to build 500 low income housing units on their property, it’s simply a lie, and they know it.

Additionally, cities are required by the statewide Growth Management Act to make accommodations for low income housing. As a separate City of Fairwood, we will have to accommodate this sort of development right here in Fairwood, or the State will withhold state money from the city if we don't comply. If we’re part of the City of Renton, we have a wider area to direct this type of development, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be in Fairwood if there’ s a better spot somewhere else.

It’s unfortunate in political campaigns when people resort to outright falsehoods. Because when incorporation proponents claim that by annexing to Renton we will cause the RHA to build 500 Section 8 apartments, it’s a lie. Keep that in mind when it comes time to vote this fall.

More on Parks in Fairwood

2009-08-23T19:52:00.000-07:00

My last posting dealt with the King County Parks system, and potential closures. In it I referenced a Seattle PI article and talked about the potential closure of Petrovitsky Park. I'm glad to say that I was wrong about King County closing Petrovitsky Park -- when the PI said King County was closing its entire park system, they were wrong. But I'm not wrong about assuming that King County will continue to operate Petrovitsky Park if Fairwood incorporates.

You can check out the latest info on the dire straights of the King County Parks system at this article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009680166_countyparks18m.html

In 2007, a property tax levy lid lift was passed by voters to support the King County parks system. That levy lasts through 2013. I have no idea what the legal requirements are of this funding, but let's assume that the county is required to fund Petrovitsky Park through 2013. If Fairwood incorporates, you can bet that the county will dump Petrovitsky Park onto the City of Fairwood as soon as it possibly can -- by 2013 at the latest.

There are no other King County parks contained entirely within the boundaries of a city. Petrovitsky Park would be the only one inside of a city. Assuming that it will continue to be funded by King County forever if Fairwood incorporates is a completely unrealistic assumption.

That's the incorporation feasibility study in a nutshell -- unrealistic assumptions that fall apart when you look at them closely. Make sure to educate yourself, and then vote no.

Check out the no campaign's website at http://www.govoteno.org/.

Parks in Fairwood

2009-07-17T22:21:00.000-07:00

Check out the following link:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/408220_taxes17.html

The gist of the article is that the interim King County Executive says that unless more tax revenue is found, King County is going to close all 39 of its parks. One of them is Petrovitsky Park.

One of the budget assumptions of the feasibility study for the proposed City of Fairwood is that King County will continue to operate Petrovitsky Park. As a result, the assumption is that Fairwood, unlike essentially every other city in the region, would have no city parks, and no city parks and recreation budget.

Petrovitsky Park would be the only regional park operated by King County that is entirely within the boundaries of a city. Given that King County has previously divested itself of parks located within city boundaries, the assumption in the feasibility study that it would continue to operate Petrovitsky Park if Fairwood incorporated simply isn't realistic, especially when King County is on the verge of shutting down its entire park system due to a lack of funding. It's quite obvious that Petrovitsky Park will quickly become the responsibility of the City of Fairwood -- a responsibility that hasn't been budgeted for in the feasibility study.

It's yet another example of a study that overestimates revenues and underestimates costs.

New Home Construction in Fairwood

2009-05-30T08:57:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately the BRB voted 8-3 to recommend approval of the proposed Fairwood incorporation. I'm not especially surprised, given that the study was largely under their control. Regardless, I think it was great that so many members of the community got involved and made their opinions known, no matter what side of the issue you are on. Far too often people are disengaged when it comes to their government, so to see quite a few people there was a good sign.

I spoke for 10 minutes representing Choose Renton. Among other things, I pointed out that the feasibility study's revenue assumptions are largely derived from 174-190 new homes being built in the Fairwood area each year from 2010 onward (I'll explain more on that in later posts). That level of new construction has not been occurring in Fairwood, and it's not going to happen in 2010. One of the things that Choose Renton did was contact a real estate agent to get MLS data for the Fairwood area so that we could see how many new homes were actually being sold, then compare that to the study's assumptions. The numbers they provided us were in stark contrast to the feasibility study assumptions. They showed that in Fairwood there had been 3 new homes sold in 2006, 2 in 2007, and 1 in 2008. So I told the BRB that at the meeting.

After I spoke, I was confronted by two different gentlemen. I'm terrible with names, so I won't even try to remember them. Both of them essentially accused me of lying, because they claimed there had been more homes built and sold in the area than I had claimed. Both pointed to the neighborhoods of WoodDale and WoodGrove, and said that there had been more than 1 home sold in 2008, and that therefore I was lying and misleading the public.

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong. So I decided to take a look at these two neighborhoods, which right now are the only ones in Fairwood where new homes are being built. You can see for yourself at these address:

http://www.bennetthomes.com/Home_Search/community.aspx?comm=13
http://www.bennetthomes.com/Home_Search/community.aspx?comm=12

When you drive through them, it's clear that construction has come to a standstill. Most of the lots have been platted and have utilities put in, but there are no new homes being built. And the majority of the homes that have been built are standing unsold and vacant. There's a total of 53 homes to be built between the two neighborhoods.

I went to the King County Parcel Viewer (http://www5.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer/viewer/kingcounty/viewer.asp), which allows you to see when homes have been sold. I looked at the homes that are shown on Bennett's map as being sold. Between the two neighborhoods, there were a total of 3 homes that were sold to private parties in 2008.

So to the two people who confronted me at the meeting, I concede that apparently our new homes sales numbers for 2008 were in error. Instead of 1 new home having been sold in Fairwood during 2008, it appears that there were 3.

I admit that I'm not that good at math, but 3 appears to be significantly less than 174. At most, there will be 53 new homes built in these two neighborhoods, which are the only new construction that presently exists in Fairwood. It's obvious that there is simply no way that 174 new homes will be built in Fairwood in 2010 -- that that number, and all the revenues and surpluses that come from it, is a gigantic mistake.

I'm not afraid to admit when I make a mistake. Are incorporation supporters willing to admit theirs?

Boundary Review Board meeting next week

2009-05-20T20:30:00.000-07:00

Next week the King County Boundary Review Board is going to have three nights of meetings regarding the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. Here's the info:

When:

Tuesday, 5/26, Wednesday, 5/27, and if necessary Thursday, 5/28

Where:

Fairwood Community United Methodist Church
15255 SE Fairwood Blvd.

At these meetings, the public will be given an opportunity to speak their mind about the proposed incorporation. It's extremely important for those of you that support annexation to show up and make your voices heard to the Boundary Review Board. They will come out with a recommendation either to approve or deny the proposed incoporation. We've already said we don't want a city, and the recent survey of the area indicates that annexation has the strongest level of support of any of the available options. So show up and make your voices heard.

Last time around, the BRB recommended denial of the proposed city, and they were right. So let's make sure they do the right thing this time, too.

Fairwood area survey

2009-03-26T20:04:00.000-07:00

Recently King County and the City of Renton jointly produced a survey of the Fairwood area. The survey asked those of us that live in Fairwood our preference: annexation, incorporation, or stay unincorporated, and went into a great deal of detail on these various options. The survey results are found here:

http://www.metrokc.gov/annex/fairwood/Fairwood_Report%20FINAL.pdf

The survey worked like this: it first asked the respondant's initial preference, then posed a series of hypotheticals, then at the end after providing more information asked the respondant's final preference. At both the beginning and the end, annexation to Renton recevied the highest level of support of any of the options.

That's what those of us that collected signatures to get annexation of the area on the ballot saw while we were out in our neighborhoods, and hopefully that's what we'll see at the meetings held by the BRB at the end of May. Make sure to show up and tell the BRB that annexation is the best possible option for the area.

The Mystery Letter

2009-02-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

I posted previously about an anonymous comment that had been made here on the blog where the author ripped me for supposedly authoring a letter that had been placed on doorsteps in the Fairwood area. The commenter claimed that I was engaging in misinformation and that I was accusing Joe Giberson of conspiring to develop the golf course.

On other forums I've been accused of engaging in personal attacks and smears against incorporation supporters, again as the result of this letter.

I didn't write the letter. I had no idea it existed until somebody posted a comment to the blog. I finally managed to get a copy of it, and I figured so that everybody could see what the hullaballo was about, I'd post it here. (A note: I'm not sure how to make the image bigger so it's more legible -- anybody have any ideas?)

So that's the letter. It's not from Choose Renton. It's not from me. I still have no idea who wrote it. I'll let you decide whether there's any personal attacks or smears in there.

Frankly, the idea that Fairwood would condemn a neighborhood for redevelopment strikes me as far fetched. Is it possible? I suppose. I don't really think it's likely, though. But the real problem with what's contained in the letter isn't that it's a personal attack, or false, because it's really neither. It's that for incorporation to succeed, it needs to have 174 to 190 new housing units built each year between 2010 and 2015. If the city doesn't condemn properties to redevelop them -- and I don't think it will -- then there won't be enough land available for all the new homes to be built. And without those new homes, Fairwood doesn't have enough revenue to survive.

That's the Hobson's choice Fairwood would face. Allow a massive amount of redevelopment, and maybe provide a slightly higher level of service than what we get now. Or don't allow redevelopment to preserve the area's character, and have a bankrupt city from the get go.

Instead of those poor choices, we should choose Renton.

Letters and Service Levels

2009-02-11T20:24:00.000-08:00

Today there were a couple of anonymous comments posted here on the blog. One castigated me for leaving a letter on doorsteps accusing the president of the Fairwood Municipal Initiative, Joe Giberson, of conspiring to redevelop the Fairwood golf course with new housing. Seeing how I haven't written any such letters, this was of course news to me. If anybody got a copy of this letter that was supposedly written by me or somebody else involved with Choose Renton, let me know, because I'd love to see it!

But more importantly, I don't have any personal issue with Joe, and I told him so in January after the Renton City Council meeting where the Red Mill Annexation meeting was discussed. I went up to Joe, shook his hand and introduced myself, and talked to him for a few minutes. I told him that it was my hope that we'd keep this debate civil, and I meant it. Which is why you won't ever see me attacking Joe -- because this isn't about him or me, it's about the issues and the facts. I told Joe that when this is all over, I'd buy him a beer at Apogee, and the offer still stands.

The irony, of course, is that even though I didn't write any such letter, what the commenter said was partially true. For Fairwood to be financially feasible as a city, there will have to be between 174 and 190 homes built per year between 2010 and 2015. The recently released draft feasibility study indicated that about 1/3 of Fairwood's land is vacant or available for redevelopment. Unfortunately I had to leave the meeting on Monday a little before it ended. But I was told that right at the end, Randall Young (one of the authors of the study) admitted that the golf course was included in the study's definition of land that's available for redevelopment. Take a look at page 54 of the study. It defines such land as any place where the value of the land is higher than the structures, which obviously includes the golf course.

Look, if people are upset about the possibility that the golf course could be threatened, and homes could be put up in its place, they should be. But don't direct those questions towards me -- direct them towards the proponents of incorporation, because it's their proposed city that would need to encourage development of homes on the golf course to have enough tax money to survive.

The second comment mentioned that I had said that Renton could provide more for less, and there's nothing to back that up. Well, I'd encourage anybody that's reading to review an older post of mine called "numbers to remember" (see http://chooserenton.blogspot.com/2008/10/numbers-to-remember.html) that has quite a few details on law enforcement service levels. Since the latest feasibility study doesn't tell us anything about what our law enforcement staffing levels would be in Fairwood, my point still stands. The feasibility study also has a zero budget for parks and recreation. Take a look at this link:

http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=6136

Then click on "what's happening." That's 40 pages showing what Renton offers its citizens from its parks and recreation department. Fairwood would have none of that -- it wouldn't be able to afford it. Fairwood's streets would also be repaved less often than if we were a part of Renton. And our taxes would be lower as part of Renton than as a City of Fairwood.

So when I say that Renton offers more for less, I say it because it happens to be true.

Draft feasibility study meeting tonight

2009-02-09T20:59:00.000-08:00

I went to the feasibility study meeting tonight at Northwood Jr. High, along with a TON of other people. I thought it was great to see such a huge turnout.

There were quite a few questions there about annexation vs. incorporation. Obviously I'm an annexation backer, but I understand that the role of the BRB and the incorporation feasibility study is not to compare incorporation with annexation. In fact, the BRB doesn't even do a feasibility study for annexations -- just incorporations. So essentially all the data you're going to get in this study relates to the feasibility of the proposed incorporation. If you want to know more about annexation, just ask us! Or post comments here.

What I found most fascinating was that Chris Mefford, one of the people involved in the draft study, was asked essentially point blank whether the Fairwood Country Club golf course is considered to be available land for redevelopment by the proposed city. He basically gave a lengthy non-answer that essentially dodged the question, rather than simply saying yes or no. Which, of course, got me thinking.

The study assumes that a huge number of new homes are going to be built in Fairwood in order to provide enough tax revenues to pay for needed services. I know people have been wondering where these homes will go. So I think it's a logical question for everybody to ask: will incorporation result in homes being built on what's now the golf course?

Ask yourself whether that's something you want. Because if you don't, then you should think long and hard before you support a city of Fairwood until these questions are answered.

Recent library related vote

2009-02-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

Randy Corman, a councilmember for the City of Renton, has a blog at http://www.randycorman.com/. Regardless of your position on annexation vs. incorporation, you should read it, because he does a great job of disseminating information to the community about what's going on in Renton.

Recently he put a post up about a recent vote by the city council to start the process to annex into the King County Library System (KCLS). I won't waste space repeating his information, so check it out here:

http://randycorman.livejournal.com/375067.html

Right now Renton has its own library system, separate from King County. I know from talking to many people at the meetings we've held that one of the big concerns people have is the Fairwood library, which is part of the King County system. This vote by the city council should alleviate a lot of those concerns. It means that annexation into Renton wouldn't change our library.

And it's yet another reason why annexation of Fairwood into the City of Renton is the best decision for the area.

Fairwood feasible? Not so fast.

2009-01-31T09:08:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the preliminary feasibility study for the proposed City of Fairwood was released. You can view it here: http://your.kingcounty.gov/annexations/hearings/2009/FairwoodReportAndModel090129.pdf

There was another study done in 2005 prior to the last vote that can be viewed here: http://your.kingcounty.gov/annex/fairwood/Fairwood%20Report%20011706%20final.pdf

It's important to review both, because when you do that, the shortcomings of the study that was released yesterday are readily apparent. There are three glaring examples that I spotted in just my brief review of the document:

1. The study assumes that there will be between 174 and 190 new housing units built in Fairwood each year between 2010 and 2015. That's in total basically a neighborhood double the size of Woodside. That new construction would bring in sales tax revenues between $315,832 and $344,875 each year from 2010 to 2015. It's simply not realistic to assume that much sales tax money on new construction given the state of the housing market. Anything above $0 in the next couple of years should be considered a bonus. New construction has essentially stopped almost everywhere. But even if there was someone to build these homes, where would you put them? Fairwood is built out. The only area with relatively large lots that could conceivably be upzoned and subdivided is the east end of the city around Lake Desire and Shady Lake. So if you live there and want a whole bunch of new houses around you, then you should support incorporation. Wasn't a City of Fairwood supposed to be about preserving the area's residential character? Instead, it looks like a boon for real estate developers to keep the city solvent.

2. The study assumes that property tax assessments (and therefore also revenues) will be increasing each year from 2010 through 2015. This is false. Since the crash of the real estate market, property values have actually declined, not increased. But since it takes a year or two for the assessor to catch up with the market, this decrease in housing values hasn't yet been reflected on people's assessments. When that happens, property tax revenues may well decline. And the study assumes that in addition to the sales tax revenues from new construction described above, there will also be property tax revenues from these 800 or more homes to be built between 2010 and 2015. That's not going to happen.

3. One of the things the 2005 study did a really good job detailing was exactly how many people would be required to make a City of Fairwood work. It had a list of FTEs and positions, and from that list figured out the city's costs of labor. Law enforcement tends to be a city's single biggest line item in a budget, and the 2005 study laid out an a la carte menu of options from the King County Sheriff's Department with differing service levels and costs. There's nothing like that in the 2009 study. The authors simply take Maple Valley's costs and extrapolate them out by population to Fairwood. That's not realistic. To know your costs, you have to know how many people are going to be working for the city. You have to outline how many people are going to be in chairs working at city hall. You have to outline how many cops are going to be in cars patrolling the city. This study does none of that, and as a result doesn't accurately show the city's potential costs.

I was hopeful that this study would give all of us information to let us make an informed decision. Unfortunately, the information it provides isn't accurate, and paints a rosy picture of both costs and revenues that isn't supported by the facts. For $125,000 of our tax dollars, we all deserved better.

Greater Fairwood annexation petition accepted

2009-01-27T20:17:00.000-08:00

Last night the Renton City Council had a vote on the Greater Fairwood annexation. First, some back story. The Greater Fairwood annexation covers all of the Fairwood PAA, except for the part contained in the Red Mill annexation. A map is here: http://www.chooserenton.com/index_files/1_fairwood_annex_vicinity.pdf

Those of us who are part of Choose Renton went out and gathered over 900 signatures of Fairwood residents to get the Greater Fairwood annexation on the ballot. We did that in just six weeks, where incorporation proponents took over six months to gather just over 600 signatures. To be clear, the City of Renton had nothing to do with our efforts -- we did all the work, because we believed it was the right thing to do, and overwhelmingly Fairwood residents supported our efforts to get a higher level of service for lower taxes than either King County or an incorporated City of Fairwood could provide.

Anyway, both the Fairwood and West Hill (which covers the Skyway/Bryn Mawr area) annexations were on the council's consent agenda last night to send them to the committee of the whole. Before the meeting, the committee of the whole went ahead and discussed the Fairwood and West Hill annexations and expressed their approval. So rather than referring both of them to the committee of the whole, the council went ahead and voted on whether to send both the Greater Fairwood and West Hill annexations to the BRB. The vote was 5-1, with one council member absent. The vote didn't split the two annexations to allow council members to express their opinion on either separately; instead, the council voted on both simultaneously. So the lone dissenting council member could well be in favor of the Fairwood annexation and opposed to West Hill or vice versa.

What's that mean? Now the Greater Fairwood community annexation goes to the BRB along with the Red Mill annexation that I've discussed before. In many ways this is just the beginning of the process. The BRB then will hold public meetings to take input on these issues. When they do, make sure to show up and make your opinion known.

Red Mill approved

2009-01-13T21:20:00.000-08:00

Last night the Renton City Council approved the Red Mill annexation petition, which sends it on the King County Boundary Review Board. At some point in the relatively near future, the BRB will hold a hearing regarding Red Mill. Hopefully the turnout at that hearing will be equal to the turnout at the City Council meeting last night, which was amazing. Thanks to all for attending, speaking, and making sure that the council saw the level of support for annexation that exists in Fairwood.

Whatever your opinion on these issues, it's heartening to see so many people involved in the process. Let's all keep up the good work! And make sure to attend the BRB hearing on 2/9/09 at Northwood Middle School from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. for the public review of the incorporation study. We need to continue to make sure that our voices are heard.

Renton Reporter articles

2009-01-08T19:07:00.000-08:00

There's three articles in the Renton Reporter this week about the annexation/incorporation debate. I talked to Dean Radford from the Renton Reporter this week about these issues. Before I say anything else, I should say thanks to Dean and the Renton Reporter for getting information out about the annexation/incorporation debate in Fairwood. Like I told Dean, I don't care where the information comes from, whether it is from us, incorporation proponents, King County, or anybody else, the people of Fairwood need to get all of the facts so they can make an informed decision.

The article on the Red Mill Annexation is here: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/news/37358124.html

The article on the Fairwood incorporation study is here: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/news/37357524.html

Dean's editorial commentary is here: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/opinion/37358359.html

When reading the article comparing Maple Valley to Fairwood, it's worth remembering that Maple Valley has roughly triple the sales tax revenues per capita than Fairwood does. In other words, there's much more commercial development in Maple Valley than in Fairwood, which allows them to pay for needed services. And even with that extra commercial development, the mayor of Maple Valley says that she wouldn't want to start a new city right now. Exactly right -- we should heed her advice, and not start a City of Fairwood that can't provide the services its citizens demand, for higher taxes than we'd pay in Renton.

Also when you read the article about Red Mill, remember that what the annexation is about is giving the property owners in that area an opportunity to decide who they want to govern them. Overwhelmingly they've decided that Renton is the best choice.

The people of Fairwood have already spoken, and said that we don't want a city. That choice should be respected. So when they speak up and want to become a part of Renton, like they have in Red Mill, incorporation proponents should respect that too.

January 12th -- Renton City Council Meeting

2008-12-27T17:04:00.000-08:00

On January 12th, 2009, the Renton City Council is going to hold a public meeting to discuss whether to accept the Red Mill Annexation. I've previously discussed Red Mill on this blog -- it's a petition method annexation in which the property owners in the Red Mill area have asked Renton to allow them to annex into the city. The hearing on the 12th is to take public input, so that the public can tell the city council why it should accept the Red Mill petition. If you support annexation of the Fairwood area into the city of Renton, make sure to show up at the meeting on the 12th and tell them.

I've also explained in a previous posting how the Red Mill annexation isn't a "land grab" as incorporation proponents claim. We've already said we don't want a city of Fairwood. Hopefully incorporation proponents will respect the will of the public and not oppose the Red Mill annexation either in front of the City of Renton or the King County Boundary Review Board.

Make sure to be there on the 12th so that your voice is heard.

Endorsed by IAFF Local 864

2008-12-09T19:06:00.001-08:00

Some of you may have seen that Choose Renton has been endorsed by Local 864 of the International Association of Firefighters (http://www.iaff864.org/). You may have thought to yourself, "so what if Renton's firefighters union endorsed Choose Renton? We're in Fire District 40."

It's important to remember that since March 1st of this year, Fire District 40 has had a contract with the City of Renton. The commissioners weighed their options, and made a decision to get the highest level of service for the best cost -- and that led them to Renton, which offered higher staffing without an increase in taxes.

What that means is that the fire district collects our taxes and then pays Renton to provide services. All of the people that used to work for Fire District 40 are now employees of the City of Renton. The people who ride the trucks wear Renton Fire Department uniforms, and their paychecks come from the City of Renton. And they're members of IAFF Local 864, the Renton firefighters' union.

This contract lasts for 20 years. So right now those of us that live in Fire District 40 are getting services from the City of Renton. When you see incorporation proponents saying that a City of Fairwood would use Fire District 40, what that really means is that they'll use the Renton Fire Department. When you hear people saying that Renton doesn't really want anything to do with Fairwood, remember that Renton's already providing us fire services.

So when you see that Renton's firefighters have endorsed us, it really means that your firefighters have endorsed us. We're proud to have them on board. And when you see that fire truck in your neighborhood that says Fire District 40 on its side, remember that it's part of the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department.

QFC closing

2008-11-23T10:41:00.000-08:00

You may have heard that the Fairwood QFC is closing its doors on 12/13/08. That's really unfortunate for all of us us, as it removes a shopping option from the Fairwood community. But more importantly, it's devastating to a potential City of Fairwood.

The prior feasibility study showed that a City of Fairwood would be dead last in King County in terms of sales tax revenues per resident. We're now losing one of the biggest stores in the area, and all of the tax revenues that go with it. If the proposed city wasn't financially feasible before, it's absolutely a disaster now.

The proponents of incorporation should recognize that circumstances have changed. Tax revenues are down. Stores are closing. Citizens want to annex to Renton. Incorporation proponents should withdraw their proposal, and allow annexation to proceed. It's the only viable option the Fairwood area has left, and we need to move forward as quickly as we can.

Red Mill annexation

2008-11-11T07:25:00.000-08:00

One of the questions that I've been asked when talking to people about our efforts is what the deal is with the Red Mill annexation, because Fairwood incorporation proponents have been calling it a "land grab." It's shown in the following map on the bottom right of the document:

http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/AJLS/Annexation/annexations_june2008_11x17.pdf

To take a look at Renton's annexation information in general, look at this page:

http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=6186

Anyway, the Red Mill annexation is a petition method annexation. What that means is the property owners in the proposed annexation area sign a petition indicating that their preference is to become part of the City of Renton. If owners of more than 60% of the assessed valuation of the area sign the petition and the city accepts it, then the area is annexed. There isn't a public vote. This method of annexation is extremely common and happens all the time.

Is this a "land grab" by the City of Renton? No. The Red Mill annexation wasn't initiated by Renton. The property owners in the area are petitioning the city, not the other way around. The Red Mill area includes both commercial and residential properties. Right now, owners of over 70% of the assessed value of the area have signed the petititon indicating they want to be a part of Renton. These are not just people who live out of state, these are people who live in the area and believe that annexation into Renton is the best possible option.

So now that they've signed the petition, what happens? The King County Boundary Review Board can remove the Red Mill area from the boundaries of the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. That's what they did with the New Life Church/Aqua Barn/Maple Ridge Estates petition method annexation earlier this year. And that's exactly what they should do with Red Mill. The people in Red Mill have spoken, and they don't want to be a part of Fairwood, they want to be a part of Renton.

It's not a land grab. It's people making decisions about their future after reviewing their options. Overwhelmingly those who live and own property in Red Mill have decided they want to join Renton. We already said we didn't want a city of Fairwood in 2006. Hopefully proponents of incorporation will respect the will of the people, and allow the Red Mill area to be removed from the proposed Fairwood boundaries when it goes before the BRB so that they can become a part of Renton.

Numbers to remember

2008-10-26T20:01:00.000-07:00

In the comment thread on my last posting, someone asked about information regarding police response times that had been handed out at the Benson Hill open house. That info is available here: http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/AJLS/Annexation/police.pdf
These numbers apparently come from 2007.

A similar chart exists from the last Fairwood incorporation vote. It's available here: http://www.metrokc.gov/annex/fairwood/Fairwood%20PAA%20Police%20Services%20-%20March%202006.pdf
Now to be fair, these numbers date from 2004. A new feasibility study hasn't yet been done for the proposed City of Fairwood this time around, so these are the only numbers we have to go on. I'm pretty confident, though, that the new study isn't going to paint a prettier financial picture than the last one, considering where the economy has gone since then.

Anyway, here's the important numbers for Fairwood residents to remember from the 2004 study:

2.39
3.34
9.46
42.13

That's how many minutes faster Renton PD is for each category of police call compared to the King County Sheriff's Department in the Fairwood area. 2.39 minutes for critical calls, 3.34 minutes for immediate calls, 9.46 for prompt calls, and 42.13 minutes (!) for routine calls.

You also should check out the Fairwood financial feasibility study appendix at this address: http://www.metrokc.gov/annex/fairwood/Appendices%20All%20011706.pdf

Here's the important numbers for Fairwood residents to remember from that:

.4
1.6

.4 is the number of Deputies per 1000 residents that would have been provided in the proposed contract for the City of Fairwood. 1.6 is the number of police officers per 1000 residents that Renton provides. That's not a misprint. Renton PD would provide quadruple the number of officers per 1000 residents that the proposed City of Fairwood would be able to pay for.

Just some things to think about when you make up your mind about whether incorporation or annexation is the best option.

Public Safety in Peril

2008-10-24T22:58:00.000-07:00

I attended the "Public Safety in Peril" meeting in Skyway last Wednesday night. The presentation wasn't pretty. Things are going to get really bad in the next few years for the unincorporated areas of King County. Check out the King County Sheriff's website on this issue at http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/sheriff/PublicSafetyinPeril.aspx

What's that mean for Fairwood? We're going to get dramatically lower levels of service from the King County Sheriff's Department. I don't fault the deputies on the street -- these decisions are made way over their heads, and the Deputies working in our neighborhoods do what they can. The problem is that there just isn't enough funding from King County for Deputies to give us the police protection we deserve.

And there wouldn't be from a city of Fairwood, either. It's worth remembering that the only law enforcement option that panned out financially in the 2005 feasibility study was for the proposed City of Fairwood to have "status quo" service from King County. What's that mean? Fairwood essentially gets exactly the same level of service we have now, with no deputies exclusively dedicated to the city. They would patrol a city of Fairwood as part of a bigger district that included parts of unincorporated King County. So when King County cuts funding for its unincorporated areas like they're doing now, since our deputies would be shared, we'd also take part of the hit. That's just not good enough.

We deserve better. We deserve the significantly increased police protection that Renton would give us. And we're gonna need it pretty soon, because with the cutbacks that are going to take place within the Sheriff's Department, unincorporated areas like Fairwood are going to soon be a great place for criminals to be.

First posting

2008-10-20T21:46:00.000-07:00

So, what have we been up to?

We collected over 900 signatures to initiate the annexation of the Fairwood PAA into the City of Renton. Now the process begins. We're hoping we can have the area vote in 2009 on annexation into Renton.

We'll keep you posted on what's happening, so make sure to check out www.chooserenton.com for additional information about Choose Renton's activities.