Renton City Council Accepts
Red Mill Annexation Petition

The City of Renton's Council Meeting on Monday, January 12, included impressive number of proponents of the Red Mill Annexation petition. Well organized, annexation proponents and leaders present at earlier meetings appeared in large numbers at this meeting.

Proponents Well Organized
Proponent leaders who spoke at this and other incorporation/annexation meetings included J. Paul Blake (Red Mill sponsor and property owner), Bryce Nelson (Choose Renton Organizer), retired Fire District 40 Chief Doug Gibbs, Linda Sartnurack (Red Mill sponsor), and former Kent School District Board Member Linda Peterson. In addition to these speakers, Doug McDonald (Renton Local 864 Firefighters Union President), Russ Radke (Woodside Resident & Renton Police Dept.), and David McCammon (Benson Hill Annexation area - Red Mill Supporter), and Marcia Holland (representing Nativity Lutheran Church) all spoke in support of the Red Mill Annexation petition.

In addition to those who spoke at the hearing, an impressive, substantial group of annexation supporters who filled the chambers stood to indicate their support. Finally, six letters of support, half of which were from commercial business owners, were noted for the public record.

Opposition Leaders
Those that were present in opposition to the Red Mill Annexation were dwarfed by the proponents. Their message to the Council was to allow the incorporation process to take its course first before considering the Red Mill Annexation. Leaders against the effort included Joe Giberson (Fairwood Municipal Initiative Organizer), Dick Mathius (Fairwood area resident), and Tom Edwards (Fairwood area resident & small business owner). One letter opposing annexation was noted and read.

Any Residents?
While Fairwood-area residents were present at this hearing, what was unclear was whether any Red Mill area residents were present. It appeared that all who spoke were not Red Mill area residents.

The Numbers
A presentation by the City Planner indicated that the Red Mill Annexation was in the best interest of the City of Renton. In terms of annual fiscal impacts, the benefits are significant, particularly when the area is fully developed. A fully developed area would include the addition of 190 dwellings.

The Current and Future Numbers are as follows:

	Current	Full Development
Assessed Values	156,466,500	435,500,000
Revenue	6990,959	1,576,073
Costs	710,006	1,237,673
Surplus/Deficit	(19,047)	338,400

The Vote
The Council Vote was swift and unanimous in its support of the Red Mill Annexation Proposal. Next steps are to submit the necessary paperwork to King County's Boundary Review Board, the agency that will make the determination for next steps in relationship to the proposed City of Fairwood Incorporation effort.

Just before the vote, Council Member King Parker expressed his appreciation for the turnout and noted how what had happened that night embodied the democratic process. "My heart swells that the idea that, pro or con, they're interested and came down and participated in their government. I think it's wonderful," said Parker.

Responses to "Red Mill Annexation Hearing"

Feburary 26 - 633 pm
Sam Shirley said: Please recognize the Red mill Annexation for what it is. It is solely designed to take the vote away from the people of Fairwood and give it to a non-voting, non resident who lives in Escondito California. "choose renton" is driven to this tactic as more and more people realize our future is best served by the people of Fairwood taking control of our own affairs. "choose renton" did not suddenly become concerned about the financial well being of a Californian multi millionaire, they want to gut the City of Fairwood before we have a chance to vote. This demonstrates their basic lack of integrity. This issue is a very important one. This is an issue we as a community need to decide for ourselves, not defer to someone else. Oh, and by the way, this annexation could have possibly gone through before the vote. The law concerning annexation says (I'm paraphrasing)that when an area files a notice of proposed incorporation (Fairwood) any affected parties wishing to annex to an adjoining city(renton) need to file within 90 days. Renton accepted the Redmill petition last month, about a year too late. During the last incorporation attempt the small neighborhood across from the golf course on the Maple Valley HWY followed the rules and annexed to renton. The boundary review board can modify boundaries by plus or minus 10%. This 10% modification is to eliminate pockets of unincorporated areas and to make more natural or reasonable boundaries. It is not a loophole for "choose renton" because they did not follow the appropriate laws. In response to an old friend of mine, Doug Gibbs, whose input on this issue was recorded on January 11th, please check your facts, they are misleading. (I'm sure this was an accident!) Most of you who recognize my name know that I have been the Deputy Sheriff serving Fairwood since 1988. Mr. Gibbs makes a comment about police service that is misleading. During the last study concerning incorporation and police response times, the numbers presented by Renton were citywide averages. They have residential districts that mirror Fairwood very closely and an apples to apples comparison could have been made. the "Citywide average" is misleading because in the very dense downtown core of renton there is a lot of crime and a lot of cops. Fast response times there distort the numbers in their favor. As the City of Fairwood our police service would be even better than it is now. WE would have direct control over our level of service, which would directly affect response times. Gibbs says incorporating into a new city would be too costly! too costly to who? Renton? We are tax exporters. We pay more money into the government than the government spends on our services. This tax surplus is prima facia evidence of the feasibility of the City of Fairwood. Who says we have a tax surplus in Fairwood? The study done by the Fairwood incorporation Task Force. The Burke and Associates study. Henderson, Young and Company. AND the City of Renton!(reported in the Renton reporter) At a public meeting during the last incorporation effort a Renton representative said Renton wanted to annex us so they could use our tax surplus in another neighborhood. Another Neighborhood? What about our neighborhood? Fairwood Residents, WAKE UP. We need to control our own zoning. We need to control our own tax surplus and keep it here. We can make Fairwood great again, but not by deferring to others and hoping for the best!

January 22 - 2:19 pm
JW said: Mary I'm on the fence but wanted to clarify the math isn't off, if 136 voters switched votes from Against Fairwood incorporation to For then incorporation would have passed by 2 votes.

January 20 - 6:33 pm
Erin Aboudara said: If the residents of Red Mill want out of the proposed incorporation, fine, but leave the shopping centers OUT of their annexation petition. Shopping centers and businesses don't vote, people do! Why should all of us have to suffer because a relatively small group of citizens complain about being included in Fairwood? Why should my kids go to a Kent School District school, with us paying MORE for schools AND KCLS but with reduced library service with Renton? Subdivide the QFC and make a nice city office with a community center for FAIRWOOD, not Renton. I believe that is what the BRB and Muni League said we did not have 2 1/2 years ago--guess what, we have the necessary space NOW with the QFC gone!

January 18 - 11:50 pm
Dave said: I elect to make a City of Fairwood. This will pass this time around and the word has been spreading with positive feed back. Looks like there is a good chance for the City of Fairwood

January 15 - 6:48 pm
Mary said: David Powell's math is off. According to King County Elections website:

Prop 1
FOR INCORPORATION 3652
AGAINST INCORPORATION 3922

The difference is 270, not 136.

Also, I live in Red Mill and I was at the city council meeting with several of my neighbors, but we didn't speak.

January 15 - 8:03 am
Jeff Thompson said: The Red Mill area residents and property owners legally followed the process to annex into Renton. They should be allowed to the follow the path they feel is best for their families and businesses.

A City of Fairwood would not be economically feasible even with the Red Mill area. The Boundary Review Board study isn't needed to show the obvious. Look at the world, national and local economic news. I don't understand why anyone would incorporate a bankrupt city to provide fewer services for higher property taxes??

All of Fairwood annexing into Renton is the best option for Fairwood residents and Renton.

Thank you for letting me share my opinion

January 12 - 10:18 am
David Powell said: Unincorporated Urban areas of King County are under-represented in many ways. Removing an area being considered for incorporation does not increase representation. King County has made it clear that they want urban areas of the county to be incorporated or become part of adjacent cities. Fairwood is one such urban unincorporated area. Just removing any area from an incorporation attempt will not expedite better representation of those interested land owners. Allowing "a few out-of-area land owners the chance to remove the commercial core of the Fairwood area" from consideration as part of the incorporation process is not fair to the others in the incorporation area. The out of area land owners get a voice in the process, but should not be allowed to interfere with ongoing grassroots local organizing efforts.

With renewed interest in the issue, the Fairwood Incorporation folks need to be allowed due process. A scant 136 votes from an area of 26,100 people(2005 population)should not be considered a failure, as suggested by some. It is not a decisive victory by any measure. Staying unincorporated is clearly not an option. Delaying incorporation by piece meal annexation perpetuates representation problems. The Boundary Review Board should not allow the separation of the commercial core of Fairwood by entertaining any discussion of removal of the area from the current and ongoing efforts to incorporate Fairwood.

January 11 - 11:34 pm
Doug Gibbs said: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to this important governance issue. I am the president of our condominium Association representing 100 percent of our residents. We are in favor of the Red Mill annexation because it would put the contiguous boundaries of the City of Renton within two blocks of our complex.

We know that if this Red Mill annexation is accepted into the City of Renton, we are that much closer to getting better service for a slightly reduced cost. We know that we would have better Police protection than what we now getting through the King County Sheriff's Office. We know that police response times would be faster and that the ratio of Police officer's to population density is much better in the City of Renton. We want to be Renton residents.

I have been a Fairwood resident for over 40 years. I am the retired Fire Chief of Fire District 40 of which I have been associated with for over 35 years. I have been involved with every Citizen Advisory Board and Fairwood Futures group that have met almost every five (5) years during this time, trying to decide the best governance for our greater Fairwood community. The options were: should we incorporate as a new city (too costly), annex to Kent (not possible), do nothing and stay as residents of unincorporated King County (and cut our service levels due to the County's 92 million dollar budget deficit) or annex to the City of Renton.

The Fire District recently decided to contract all fire and emergency services to the City of Renton. It has worked extremely well. I think that if we are allowed to annex to the City of Renton we will be able to have long term economic stability for our community, have lower taxes, be able to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood and at the same time - have a higher level of service. It's the best choice!!

Through the petition method...The people of Red Mill have spoken. They want to be part of the City of Renton. They don't want to form a new City with uncertain service levels, unknown costs and unknown financial feasibility. Approximately 74% of the residents and owners in the Red Mill annexation area want to be part of Renton. So I say let them!!

January 11 - 7:47 pm
Carl Pedersen said: I believe if a group of citizens decide they want to be removed from an incorporation area for whatever reason, they should be granted that right. This is very similar to the groups that requested to be removed from the failed Fairwood incorporations a couple of years ago. Namely the Lindberg and Renton Park areas. The Boundary Review Board should grant them this respect.

Renton City Council Accepts Red Mill Annexation Petition