Disclaimer
This document has been edited to improve readability and allow availability on King County's web site. The North Highline Governance Options Report is available from the Office of Regional Policy and Planning, Governance Transition Section.

Table of Contents

>> Executive Summary:
>> Introduction and Report Organization:
>> General Characteristics of the Study Area:
>> Public Survey:
>> Preserving the Status Quo:
>> Analysis of Incorporation Alternatives:
>> Analysis of Annexation:
>> Levels of Service and Expenditures Per Capita:
>> Appendix A:  Maps
>> Appendix B:  Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility on Incorporation
>> Appendix C:  Description of Governance Options
>> Appendix D:  King County Countywide Planning Policies Related to
                         Annexation and Incorporation
>> Appendix E:  King County Policies and Programs Related to
                         Annexation and Incorporation
>> Appendix F:   Letter from North Highline UAC to King County
                         Requesting Governance Options Report
>> Appendix G:  Survey Form

Executive Summary:

The Growth Management Act, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the King County Comprehensive Plan encourage all unincorporated area s within King County's Urban Growth Boundary to pursue incorporated status either through annexation or through incorporation. State law (RCW 36.70A.110) provides the underlying rationale for these policies: "In general, cities are the local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services."

In response to the direction of the Growth Management Act (GMA), in the early 1990s, King County and the suburban cities worked together to develop a framework of policies intended to guide jurisdictions as they planned for the future. These policies, referred to as the Countywide Planning Policies, are King County and the suburban cities' interjurisdictional plan for implementing the goals of the Growth Management Act. As directed by the GMA, these Countywide Planning Policies explicitly address the status of unincorporated urban areas.

>> Sections within the Executive Summary:

I. Background
II. Study Purpose
III. What Are the Alternatives?
IV. Preserving the Status Quo
V. Is Incorporation Feasible?
VI. What Would Annexation Mean for Residents of North Highline?
VII. Important Findings

>> View Executive Summary:

Word 7.doc (58 KB)
Rich Text File.rtf (79 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Introduction and Report Organization:

Whatever governance option North Highline residents choose, under existing state law, a change in local governance will not occur without affirmative action by North Highline residents. A neighboring city, for example, cannot "take over" North Highline without the consent of North Highline residents through petition or vote, nor can King County force the area to annex to another city.

>> Sections within:

Introduction and Report Organization:
I. What are the governance alternatives?
II. Goals and objectives of the report
III. Report Organization
IV. Locator Map

>> View Introduction and Report Organization:

Word 7.doc (48 KB)
Rich Text File.rtf (67 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

General Characteristics of the Study Area:

North Highline is an urban unincorporated area surrounded by the cities of Seattle, Tukwila, SeaTac, and Burien. The area is between three and four miles wide and slightly more than 2 miles from North to South and includes the neighborhoods of Beverly Park, Boulevard Park, Glendale, Riverton Heights, Salmon Creek, Top Hat, Roxhill, and an industrial area along the Duwamish River.

>> Sections within:

General Characteristics of the Study Area
I. Population
II. Taxable Assessed Value

>> View Chapter: General Characteristics of the Study Area

Word 7.doc (327 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (3,020 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Public Survey:

To identify the key issues on the minds of North Highline residents and businesses regarding governance preferences, we conducted a statistically valid survey of North Highline households. The survey assessed the community's preference of the governance alternatives as well as its satisfaction with present delivery of services, affinity towards surrounding cities, and residents' demographics.

>> Sections within:

Public Survey
I. Survey Preparation and Data Collection
II. Sample
III. Data Processing and Analysis
IV. Sample Characterstics
V. Results and Discussion
VI. Future Governance Options VII. Conclusions

>> View Chapter: Public Survey

Word 7.doc (233 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (6,447 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Preserving the Status Quo:

When asked what form of governance North Highline residents preferred, a full 66 percent of respondents to the opinion survey said that they preferred the status quo. As it was worded in the survey, the respondents indicated that "the best choice for the future" was to "stay as it is - part of unincorporated King County." Of the remainder, 26 percent favored annexation, and only 8 percent favored incorporation. While these responses are illuminating and help to clarify current attitudes, they also raise some important questions. First among these questions may be:"Is the status quo a viable, long-term option?"

>> Sections within:

Preserving the Status Quo:
I. Is preserving the status quo really an option?

>> View Chapter: Preserving the Status Quo

Word 7.doc (46 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (63 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Analysis of Incorporation Alternatives:

The vast majority of residents who responded to our public survey indicated that incorporation was the least attractive of the available alternatives. If continuation of the status quo remains an option, then most residents prefer this alternative. If remaining with the status quo is not an option, then most respondents indicated a preference for annexing to another city.

In fact, based on our analysis of North Highline's fiscal position, we find that incorporation is not financially feasible. In order to provide readers with the most complete information possible, on the following pages we provide a thorough discussion of this assessment. Some readers may want to skip to the punch line and scan the following section only briefly, then jump ahead to our analysis of annexation alternatives beginning on page 51. Others, however, wishing to ensure that they have a complete understanding of the underlying reasons for our finding, might want to take the time to read this entire section carefully.

>> Sections within:

Analysis of Incorporation Alternatives
I. Does Incorporation of North Highline Appear Financially Feasible?
II. What are the Key Factors Affecting Feasibility?
III.Key Assumptions IV. Overview of Projected Revenues and Expenses

>> View Chapter: Analysis of Incorporation Alternatives

Word 7.doc (99 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (226 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Analysis of Annexation:

Most respondents to our public survey indicated that they would prefer to stay with the status quo and remain a part of unincorporated King County. In the absence of this alternative, however, the vast majority preferred annexation to an adjoining city rather than incorporating as a new city.

>> Sections within:

Analysis of Annexation
I. General Outline of the Annexation Process
II. What This Analysis Is About
III. Methodology
IV. Key Assumptions

>> View Chapter: Analysis of Annexation

Word 7.doc (55 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (76 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Levels of Service and Expenditures Per Capita

>> Sections within:

Levels of Service and Expenditures Per Capita
I. Levels of Service

1. Animal Control
2. Corrections
3. Courts
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
5. Human Services
6. Library
7. Parks and Recreation
8. Planning and Land Use Regulation
9. Police
10. Roads/Streets
11. Sewer
12. Solid Waste
13. Stormwater
14. Water
15. Property Taxes
16. Other Taxes and Fees

II. Limitations on Use of the Annexation Annalysis

>> View Chapter: Levels of Service and Expenditures Per Capita

Word 7.doc (166 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (237 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix A:  Maps

>> List of Combined Maps within Appendix A:

I. Land Use Map
II. Water and Sewer District Map
III. Fire District Map
IV. School District Map

>> View Combined Maps

· Combined North Highline Maps .pdf file (692 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix B:  Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility on Incorporation

>> Sections within Appendix B:

Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility on Incorporation
I. Parameters
II. Projected Revenues
III. Projected Expenses
IV. Revenues Less Expenses
V. Revenues not available to General Fund
VI. Projected Average Annual Capital Expenditures
VII. Core Operating Costs and Annual Capital Expenses
VIII. Revenues Less Operating & Annual Capital Expenses
IX. Notes on Incorporation Feasibility Assessment
X. Details of Regression Analysis Used for Forecasting Retail Sales Tax Revenues Per Captia.

>> View Appendix B:

Word 7.doc (83 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (152 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix C:  Description of Governance Options

>> Sections within Appendix C:

Description of Governance Options
I. Incorporation
II. Annexation
III. Role of King County Boundary Review Board in Annexations and Incorporations

>> View Appendix C:

Word 7.doc (59 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (80 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix D:  King County Countywide Planning Policies                         Related to Annexation and Incorporation

The Growth Management Act requires each County to designate Urban Growth Areas, in consultation with cities. Within the Countywide Urban Growth Area, each city will identify land needed for its growth for the next 20 years. Although the Growth Management Act does not explicitly equate Urban Growth Areas with municipal annexation areas, the Urban Growth Areas around cities may be considered potential expansion areas for cities.

>> View Appendix D:

Word 7.doc (49 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (66 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix E:  King County Policies and Programs Related to                        Annexation and Incorporation

King County has a number of adopted policies and programs which consider annexations and incorporations in light of the State's Growth Management Act requirements. The following information is intended to clarify King County's role as a local government in annexation or incorporation of unincorporated areas within of the Urban Growth Boundary and provide information to assist the public in making thoroughly informed decisions about governance.

>> Sections within Appendix E:

King County Policies and Programs Related to Annexation and Incorporation
I. The Annexation and Incorporation Process
II. Adopted Annexation and Incorporation Policies
III. Potential Annexation Area Program
IV. 1997 PAA and Annexation and Incorporation Work Program: Current Status

>> View Appendix E:

Word 7.doc (52 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (73 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix F:   Letter from North Highline UAC to King County                         Requesting Governance Options Report

>> View Appendix F:

Word 7.doc (21 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (6 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix G:  Survey Form

>> View the Survey Form:

Word 7.doc (64 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (106 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

If you have questions about the North Highline Governance Options Report, please call the Governance Transition Section of the Office of Regional Policy and Planning. (206) 205-0700 or send e-mail to Michael Thomas.