May 28, 2009

1 Comments

Day Two
Boundary Review Board Completes Day Two
of Three Public Hearings on Fairwood Incorporation

The Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) completed its second day of hearings last night to determine whether they will recommend that Fairwood would be feasible to incorporate as a new city. A slightly smaller group of citizens attended this second meeting at Fairwood United Methodist Church.

Wednesday's meeting included all of the 11 Boundary Review Board Members.

After the formal business was conducted, the Boundary Review Board resumed where they had left off the at the first meeting.

Sample Follow-Up Questions

Public Safety: The BRB resumed questions for study consultants Henderson, Young and Company about public safety staffing and the level of service Fairwood would receive compared to what King County is currently providing as an unincorporated area.

Consultants Randy Young and Chris Mefford both said the study used the City of Maple Valley as the comparable model, making the assumption that a station would be located in the Fairwood area, and staffing would be comparable to the staffing levels Maple Valley currently receives. "Fairwood would receive not quite triple the level of service they are currently receiving," said Young.

Former Port of Seattle Police Captain John Holman asked for clarification of the staffing numbers, and Mefford reassured the board that the Maple Valley staffing numbers were first obtained by a news source (which was Fairwood Community News) and later confirmed by one of their internal staff members.

Revenues: Chair Claudia Hirschey had questions about how a new City of Fairwood would begin collecting taxes and whether monies would automatically flow into the city's budget. Her question stemmed from her own experience as a former member of Newcastle's City Council. First, some of the taxes require an act of the council to implement taxes such as utility taxes. The utility tax was of particular concern to her, as Newcastle received a severe "backlash" when they wanted to implement this type of tax.

"I'm uncomfortable with this number as a revenue source," said Hirschey, because it's not a guarantee that the tax will be assessed. "This is no small tax to implement."

Streets: Holman questioned information about current needs for road resurfacing and how a new City of Fairwood could address those needs when under a 20-year resurfacing plan. Young said the study numbers indicate there would be a significant excess in capital expenditure funds, and the City could decide how they appropriate this money. If the City of Fairwood desired it could reduce the standard 20-year plan to a 10-year cycle, which is what many cities choose to do once they have this control.

Tax Revenues: Former Director of Municipal Public Works/Land Use Planning Lynn Guttmann questioned a letter received about real estate and other taxes. The letter contended that if the number of sales changed, a new City of Fairwood's surplus of funds could be reduced by $2 million.

Both Mefford and Young addressed the concerns about the accuracy of numbers. Mefford began with questioning the letters numbers when his data specifically dealing with the taxes listed totaled only $1.3 million.

The term "sensitivity" to fluctuations in population growth was also covered, addressing whether growth would have a significant impact in revenue streams. Mefford said they used three numbers to project revenue related to growth in population: 0.8, 0.3 and 0 percent.

"The numbers are less sensitive than you would expect," said Mefford. "There is a pretty minor change. Even at zero percent, it still resulted in greater revenue than expenses. It's less sensitive than what people would like to think because of the good-sized, 25,000 base. Changes in population aren't as significant at this level."

Young also reiterated that the models in the study worked on pessimistic, baseline and optimistic scenarios, and all the numbers show revenue would exceed expenditures. "We thought you should be aware, built in are revenues are modeled low and expenses are modeled high. Therefore, the numbers are even more conservative," said Young.

Young explained also that the economic modeling completed was based on 2007 data because those numbers do not reflect the additional revenue that will be collected based on 2008 and 2009 property valuations. Young explained 2008 property tax valuations increased by 12 percent and in 2009, the numbers have increased by an additional 10 percent. While that number is not an increase in taxes at that same level, it does show that this increase in revenues was not added into the study. On the other side, the numbers the current 2009 valuations will not show up until 2011 or 2012, said Young. So Fairwood would have some time to prepare for this change.

Fairwood Municipal Initiative in Hot Seat

To follow up on Fairwood Municipal Initiative's presentation on Tuesday, BRB members had a number of questions, including specifics on additional street improvement projects that should be included such as sidewalks, curbs and other amenities. Giberson had difficulty addressing this question. Another difficult question was posed by real estate agent Evangeline Anderson relating to retaining the suburban character of the area.

Retired Sewer District Commissioner Robert George had concerns about parks and what a City of Fairwood would do to address possible requests from citizens for more parks. Giberson replied that in addition to the public parks currently owned and maintained by King County a number of larger developments own and maintain parks by their respective homeowners associations. These parks are not listed on public maps, but they do exist. Later during citizen testimony, president of Forest Estates Homeowners Association said their three parks are owned by the HOA, but they "are happy to allow the public to use our parks." FMI's Jill Anderson said the City would have the ability to form a committee to address this.

Government Agencies

The BRB's Lenora Blauman indicated that a number of government agencies show up to speak at incorporation hearings. This was not the case on Wednesday. Just one government agency, King County, testified.

Gwen Clemens, representing the King County Executive Office of Management and Budget, stated that King County endorses the effort to allow the citizens to move to the ballot without any changes. Fairwood Community News is obtaining this document and will post it as soon as we receive it. One of the deciding factors to support the incorporation vote was that the study demonstrated a new City of Fairwood would have revenues that are expect to exceed expenditures.

Some discussion occurred about why King County had made such a strong statement when a number of people want to annex. A point of order was interjected and Blauman clarified that there was no annexation petition in front of the BRB. "It's the incorporation that is before the BRB," said Blauman.

Clemens did conclude that it is King County's position that cities are the best providers of citizens, and on that premise they are supporting this effort.

Citizen Testimony

Approximately ten citizens spoke during the final portion of the night's hearing. Among those, several retired citizens expressed great concern that the study's financial numbers were inaccurate and Fairwood would not be able to function as a financially healthy city. They also expressed passionate concern that a new city would literally tax them out of their already overtaxed homes.

Other citizens expressed support, citing the opportunity to have local control, both in its government and keeping local funds local.

Three groups spoke during this time.

First, a representative of the Renton Firefighters spoke on behalf of those firefighters. A BRB representative questioned his key reason to deny the petition was to retain his Renton Firefighter jobs.

Second, Randall Wilson, President of the Forest Estates Homeowners Association, said the citizen should be allowed to vote on incorporation. He noted that times have changed from the previous election, including the point that the area no longer has the option to stay unincorporated. "Over 5,000 (voters) did not vote (in the previous election). This time, they will vote," said Wilson. He added that incorporation would provide local control, and during this economic crisis, a local government would spend locally and wisely, "providing a level of service we choose to pay for," said Wilson. "We found that we are financially feasible, even in the worst of times. We can plan how in tough times to operate lean."

Additionally, Wilson discouraged the BRB to reject removing the Red Mill portion from the proposed incorporation area. "Most important, local citizens get to vote, not business owners outside of the state."

The final group to testify represented the Red Mill area, requesting that the BRB remove the area labeled as Red Mill, so they can annex into the City of Renton. BRB's Guttman needed clarification about why this group cannot vote pro or con incorporation, and Red Mill spokesperson J Paul Blake explained that the bulk of the property owners of the proposed Red Mill Annexation area are not citizens of the area, they are property owners, such as owners of shopping malls, apartment complexes and other commercial businesses. Guttman was confused about the testimony because apparently she had received list of citizens living in that area who requesting that they be allowed to vote on incorporation rather than being controlled by property owners who were not registered voters.

At this point, time had run out. Public testimony and deliberations are scheduled for tonight.

Citizen Testimony Guidelines

Both representatives of organizations/groups and individuals may speak during the public testimony time. Organizations such as homeowners associations will be allowed ten minutes to speak, and individuals will be allowed three minutes. If more than one person intends to speak for an organization, they fall under the group 10-minute limit and will be encouraged not to repeat points already covered by others of the group.

If an individual speaks for more than one "group," they will be asked not to repeat points already covered.

Questions & Answers

Q&A moments are often a part of the sessions and are not included in the three and 10-minute limits. The BRB may ask questions of speakers, and responses will not be a part of that time limit.

At the end of a speaker's public testimony, speakers may also ask questions they would like answered but they will not asks direct questions to other groups or individuals. "Often, a speaker may say 'Before I close, I would like to ask the Board to get clarification on...'," said BRB's Lenora Blauman, as an example.

Final Meeting

The final session tonight will allow for more public testimony and interaction with the BRB, and the intent is to move into deliberations and an initial decision.

Citizens who would like to speak must sign up to speak and will then be called in order as listed on the sign up sheet. Currently, fifteen citizens have signed up to speak tonight.

When all public testimonies have been completed, the Fairwood Municipal Initiative will present a 10-minute rebuttal. The BRB will then close the public hearing, begin deliberations and come to a preliminary decision of whether to:

- Accept the proposed incorporation work,

- Accept with minor changes, or

- Deny the recommendation.

The public is welcome to be present during this deliberation period but will not be allowed to speak as the public hearings have come to a close, according to Blauman. If the public meeting ends past 9 or 9:15 pm, the BRB will then decided whether to proceed with the deliberation at that time or delay it until the next day.

Doors open at 6:30 pm to review exhibits and available materials.

Final Meeting Tonight

The final formal hearing is tonight at Fairwood Community United Methodist Church, located at 15255 SE Fairwood Boulevard, 98058. For a map of the location, CLICK HERE.

Next Steps

After the public hearings have been completed and a preliminary decision has been made, the decision will be formalized at a June 18 BRB meeting. Following that meeting, a 30-day appeal period begins. After that period of time passes, an election can proceed.

Final Report

To download the final report the Boundary Review Board has received from the Study Consultants led by Henderson, Young & Company, CLICK HERE or the image to the left.

 

 

 

Check Back with Us

Check back with Fairwood Community News on what happens tonight. We do encourage all to participate at the meetings if their schedules allow.