Fairwood Incorporation Draft Study Released Community Meeting Set for Feb. 9

The long-awaited Draft of the Fairwood Incorporation Study has been released, and citizens will have an opportunity to make comments, ask questions, and seek answers at an upcoming community meeting scheduled for February 9.

Members of the Boundary Review Board, Study Consultants and the Sponsors of this Initiative will be present. The consultants are the focal point of the meeting to present their findings, gather public input and answer questions about the draft study.

Financial Findings
One of the most-asked questions is whether Fairwood could financially sustain itself as a city. On pages 47 and 48 of the 116-page report, the summary appears to say that it could, with estimated revenues exceeding expenditures by $817,821 in the first year, 2010. The estimates extend to the year 2015, where revenues exceed expenditures by almost $1 million.

The study's project manager, Randy Young, of Henderson, Young & Company, contracted by King County's Boundary Review Board (BRB), would not make conclusions about the results of the study, emphasizing that he maintain a neutral position, a specific directive made by the BRB. Other consultants on the Team include ICF/Jones & Stokes, and Community Attributes.

"The Boundary Review Board was clear that we do the research and not form a specific conclusion," said Young. "We put together facts so the reader (of the study) concludes."

Methodology
Questions will probably be asked about why the study completed in 2005 is so different than the current study. Young says that the methodologies are very different.

"In 2005, the study began with not quite a blank piece of paper, creating a study about what Fairwood could be," said Young.

The current study differs from the previous in that the consultants were directed to complete the study based on a comparable city methodology. The group (BRB, Consultants and Fairwood Municipal Initiative) considered which city is most likely to be like Fairwood, and they concluded that Maple Valley would be the point of reference.

From that point of reference, the consultants then customized their research to respond to Fairwood attributes, according to Young.

"For example, if Maple Valley's spending $35 per person for police, what would that level be for Fairwood? We extrapolate and then compare to Fairwood," said Young. Examples of other elements compared included housing, jobs and levels of services.

"Where the comparison wasn't applicable, we used other data, and that is noted in the report," said Young.

The 2005 Study also made many comparisons and included data in tables, but according to Young, the single city point-of-reference in the current study is a very different methodology.

Economic Conditions Considered?
With the downswing in the economy, would the City of Fairwood's economic data still result in such apparently positive data?

According to Young, the Boundary Review Board Committee directed the consultants not to answer that question, but to focus on what a "typical" year would be for Fairwood. The current economy was not a consideration.

"The economy is inherently cyclical, and rather than outguess economists who say 'I don't know,' we focused on a typical year for Fairwood, that elusive 'average,'" said Young. "If you look at conditions in normal times, then you can adjust for harder times."

Fairwood Municipal Initiative Responds
Fairwood Municipal Initiative's Joe Giberson is currently focused on ensuring the study has the best information so voters can make the best decisions when they finally vote.

"We want people to go the meeting and ask good questions. If the consulting firm misses something, then they will revise the study," said Giberson. "It's a learning experience to hone the study into a fine point. It's all about getting the best information to make the best decisions."

Community Meetings Scheduled
Members of the Boundary Review Board, the consultant team and members of sponsor group Fairwood Municipal Initiative will be present at the first Community Meeting, set for Monday, February 9, from 5:30-8 pm at Northwood Middle School's Cafeteria. This will be the community's first opportunity to seek feedback and provide input on the draft study.

The evening will begin with an Open House format from 5:30-6 pm, where citizens will be able to review documents. From 6-8 pm, the study committee will make a presentation, and then attendees will break into small groups based on topics.

"We want those who attend to bring as many questions and comments - there is no limit," said Young. "You need not prepare; no homework is required. We want to hear from everybody."

According to Young, a second Community Meeting has been set for
March 19, also at Northwood Middle School. The time is also set for
5:30-8 pm, and the format will be determined after the February 9 meeting.

Draft Study Copies
Hard copies of the 116-page Draft Study are available for review at the Fairwood Library.

To download an electronic copy of the study, we have made it easy for you by making it available on our website. Simply click the image of the Study's cover to the right on this page, or click the map image on FCN's Home Page.

Responses to "Community Meeting Set"

March 5 - 7:48 pm
Sam Shirley said: Bryce, those numbers you quoted for response times are the ones to which I was referring. Did you you notice that the Fairwood and Cascade stats were broken down by districts while the entire city of Renton was averaged? That's not an apples to apples comparison. As far as our future police coverage as the city of Fairwood, I would bet that we will significantly increase our service levels, just like all of the other cities that contract with King County. I was happy to see that you relied on and trusted the Burke and Associates Study. The findings of that independent study concluded that for the same tax dollars we pay right now, we could pay for all of a small cities costs and increase our police coverage. The bottom line is that we are financially feasible, and will be much better of on our own.

March 2 - 6:19 pm
Bryce Nelson said: Hi Sam,

While I understand your passion, everything I have posted is factual. First off, I certainly appreciate your admission that the present incorporation study does not provide any information about what the law enforcement service levels would be for a city of Fairwood, and therefore does not provide an accurate assessment of costs. It's a criticism I've had since the study came out, and I'm glad to see that you agree.

Since we agree that the present study doesn't provide an accurate assessment of law enforcement service levels for Fairwood, we should look back to the 2005 studies, which did provide a great amount of detail. Renton would respond 2.39 minutes faster than King County's service levels in the area for critical calls, 3.34 minutes for immediate calls, 9.46 for prompt calls, and 42.13 minutes for routine calls. It's important to remember that Fairwood would likely only be able to afford King County's current service levels, i.e. the "status quo plus city chief" option in the 2005 study.

Renton PD staffs at 1.6 commissioned officers per 1000 population, while the City of Fairwood would provide anywhere from .4 to .7 commissioned officers per 1000 population. Renton has a dedicated traffic enforement section, while in Fairwood patrol deputies would be responsible for traffic enforcement in our neighborhoods without dedicated traffic officers. Renton is a CALEA accredited law enforcement agency, while the King County Sheriff's Department is not. Renton would not have any transfers for fire and EMS 911 calls, shortening response times, while Fairwood would have to transfer 911 calls for fire and EMS to Valley Com, causing response times to be longer than under Renton.

So when I say that Renton would provide a higher level of service to the area than we would get as an incorporated city of Fairwood, I say that because the objective data -- the facts -- back me up.

February 26 - 9:04 pm
Sam Shirley said: Hey Bryce, "choose renton" spokesman, please stop misleading the citizens of Fairwood. If you support Renton, good for you. Say so and provide Facts. Your statement above is demonstrably false (I dont like to use the "L" word). Your assertion is that Renton will provide response times and levels of service that are drastically better than King County could provide. to start, the City of Fairwood has not incorporated (yet) and therefore a level of police service has not been CHOSEN. Yes, as a new city we will get to pick the level of service provided to us. response times are directly corellated to service levels. since we dont know what levels of service we will pick, it is misleading for you to assert faster response times from RPD. The King County Sheriff's Office has over 700 commisioned Deputies. In an extreme emergency we can field almost 300 deputies to a crisis and sustain it 24/7. (I have been a Deputy for 21 years and this has never happened, but I did say your assertion was demonstrably false) Renton could not match this. As part of Renton we could compete with dowtown, the cemetary hill and all other parts of Renton for police service. If we are dissatisfied with the level of service provided we would have no real recourse. Fairwood would never be able to control a majority of the Renton city council, and therefore would be obligated to take what was given us. ----"choose renton"--- FOR NO CONTROL IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD

February 9 - 6:04 am
Erin Aboudara said: I said: IF the BRB (and it was their study, not FMI's study) gives us an approval this time, THEN I and many other 30-50 somethings will vote for it. Sadly, there does seem to be less interest in protecting OUR community's interests and public safety long term than there was 2-1/2-3 years ago. Believe me, I listened to what Renton had to offer at the last big Open House put on, I believe, by King County about our governance options 3 years ago. I went to J. Paul Blake's meeting at the Fairwood Library in Jan. 2006. I listened. But I don't see at this point how my family's safety, our eroding sidewalks in Fairwood Greens and other neighborhoods, etc., will be helped LONG TERM with an annexation. Just look at what has happened to the Renton Highlands! My grandma was getting break in's in the early 1980's. It once had been a cute community. She left there in 1984 for the Kent East Hill where we lived because it was SAFER. Regardless of how we may choose to vote, we are ALL going to have to work VERY HARD and look out for our neighbors and our business district and keep all who govern and protect Fairwood accountable and on the ball so that that kind of decline won't happen here! I think that is something that all of us can agree on.

February 7 - 7:03 pm
Jeff said: Incorporating a City of Fairwood is a terrible option no matter how the Incorporation lobby twists the numbers. My wife and I, along with many other Fairwood residents we've talked to, are 30 - 50 with kids in school and are voting "NO" to incorporation and "YES' to annex into Renton. We do not want our family burdened with a financially unstable city, which Fairwood would be.

Does anyone look at the current economic situation? Examine the details of the study. Do you want to gamble your family's future on an uncertain proposed city or an established city with actual businesses to offset property taxes?

It is a free country and some people may think economic conditions are good, gas will be $1.00/gallon and a City of Fairwood would be economically feasible. My family disagrees and is voting "NO" to incorporation.

February 7, 2009 - 10:33 am
Erin Aboudara said: Bryce: We will have to share our library tax $$$ with Renton, unless of course we wait until AFTER 2012 for an annexation. If the Renton libraries do not annex, sure we will pay less for THEIR libraries but we have library bonds through 2030 and NO EXPANSION OF THE FAIRWOOD LIBRARY if an annexation to Renton occurs before 2012. I have children in elementary school. I use that library. Does the library collection, computers and other materials come with annexation to Renton? KCLS will take them because they are the property of their library system only. But if the Boundary Review Board gives incorporation the go ahead, I WILL VOTE FOR IT and so will many more of us 30-50 somethings with kids in the BETTER Kent Schools. I drive through Cascade often to get to my neighborhood and I saw many Renton patrols 6 months ago but none lately. There is fresh graffiti in Cascade. I don't want that in my HOA neighborhood! Sorry, but I do know the facts. I have spent hours recently and years past researching this. You are the spokesperson for your group, ready to give "fluff" to the masses but I am a real, regular citizen of Fairwood. We are a DIFFERENT community than all of Renton. Will the voters of Renton support higher taxes for a public library system, annexing itself to KCLS? I would rather wait and see...And I also happen to be Terri Briere's niece, so if I am not impressed by Renton, who else would be?

February 6, 2009 - 7:34 pm
Bryce Nelson said: Hi all. I'm Bryce, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm the spokesperson for Choose Renton.

With all due respect to Erin, she simply doesn't have her facts right. Renton's police response times and levels of service are drastically better then what King County used to provide for Benson Hill, and they're drastically better than what King County could provide for Fairwood.

It's also simply not true that annexation into Renton would require us to pay more for libraries. If Renton doesn't annex into KCLS, we would pay significantly less for libraries. If Renton does annex into KCLS, we'd pay exactly what we pay now and continue to get the same service we get now.

It's important for people to learn the facts so that they can make an informed decision.

February 6, 2009 - 5:03 pm
Erin Aboudara said: According to one resident of a recently annexed neighborhood, the garbage rates for his community were higher (doubled) and that service was cut significantly after joining Renton. It was a letter to the editor in the Renton Reporter on Jan. 23rd, titled "Annexation Problems". The letter writer stated that he had supported joining Renton but now has regrets. The online version of the letter on the Renton Reporter website was dated Jan. 22nd.

I'm in favor also of contracting with the King County Sheriff's Office for a higher level of law enforcement service. Benson Hill does not currently enjoy much more service than they did with King County from Renton Police. Six months ago, they clearly had more patrol from Renton than they do right now.

February 6, 2009 - 2:08 pm
Paul Kingman said: Surface Water charges are not additional, They are simply paid separatly from the overall cost of property tax. I did not like it either, however Renton negotiated a Waste Disposal cost far below that paid by people formerly part of King County. Current Renton costs are $18.41/month. Former King County cost for the same full service was approximately $40/month paid quarterly. A huge savings.

February 3, 2009 - 4:03 pm
Erin Aboudara said: If we annex to Renton, they will have to raise more tax $$ for their libraries even if they annex their libraries to KCLS. This means we would get to foot much of the bill. We already have a great library and it is due for expansion in 2012. We are already paying for that right now. Don't annex if you want to keep the taxes you already pay lower (relatively speaking!). We would also get to pay for much of the recent Benson Hill annexation and if there was any West Hill/Skyway annexation (doubtful--too much of a budget shortfall for Renton). Think about all that $$ that it would require to annex to a city with a deficit and ask many questions during the breakout sessions. Fairwood may prove to be much more cost effective in both the short and long term.

February 3, 2009 - 5:18 am
Don Hummel said: When you go to the meeting, make sure you ask them about the new bill you will be getting from the city of Renton, called 'Suface Water Management' the money they say you save on taxes.

Fairwood Incorporation Draft Study Released Community Meeting Set for Feb. 9

Leave a Comment: