Governance Options in the Years Ahead
King County, Washington
300 Mutual Life Building 605 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 622-2403
Henderson, Young & Company Pacific Rim Resources
Cathy Guy, Steven D. Hillestad, Preston G. Horne-Brine, Angelina Lorbeski, Eugene V. Lux, Marilou Monster Mariotti, Victoria Lynch Odden, Pat Rosenthal, Judith K. Sroufe, Donald Stone, Robert T. Sugden, Ann R. Uhrich, Chuck Vitiritti, Anne Watanabe, George Wittrock and Raney Budd Wright
Disclaimer
>> Introduction and Report Organization: >> General Characteristics of the Study Area: >> Public Survey: >> Preserving the Status Quo: >> Analysis of Incorporation Alternatives: >> Analysis of Annexation: >> Appendix A: Maps >> Appendix B: Details of 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 West Hill UAC to King County Requesting Governance Options Report >> Appendix G: Survey Form
BackgroundThe Growth Management Act, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the King County Comprehensive Plan encourage all unincorporated areas 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. Among other things, the policies call for:
The Countywide Planning Policies anticipate that, as this 20-year transition proceeds, the role of county government will evolve into one of providing regional services on a countywide basis and providing local services only to rural areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Given the clear direction of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies, King County government has tried to facilitate the governance transition of unincorporated urban areas. This report represents the County's latest effort to assist the citizen's of West Hill in determining which governance option is best suited to the needs of the community. In November 1997, the West Hill Community Council presented King County with a letter requesting a study assessing the governance alternatives available to West Hill. In response to the request, the King County Council allocated funding, and in December 1998, the Office of Regional Policy and Planning hired a consultant team led by ECONorthwest to prepare this governance options report. ECONorthwest's team included staff from Henderson, Young & Company and Pacific Rim Resources. Throughout the development of this options report, the consultants received valuable assistance from the members of the West Hill Community Advisory Panel (CAP). At all stages of the analysis, the members of the CAP served as advisors and as voices for the community, providing valuable insights into the perspective of West Hill residents, businesses, and community groups. The Panel's assistance has been of great value in determining both the direction and the structure of this analysis. In addition to the assistance and direction provided by the CAP, the consultants also received substantial assistance from County staff and from staff at the City of Renton and the City of Seattle. Representatives of each of these three jurisdictions invested a great deal of time and effort to ensure that this report would provide accurate and comprehensive data describing levels of services, costs, and rates of taxation within their jurisdiction.
Study PurposeThis report provides West Hill residents and businesses with reliable and unbiased information with which to make well-informed decisions about their future.Residents are likely to have four primary questions when thinking about their local governance options:
2. How might our services or taxes change if we annex to a neighboring city? 3. Is maintaining the status quo a viable option? 4. What do my neighbors think about these options? To determine the feasibility of incorporation, this report includes a rigorous assessment of West Hill's financial position, evaluating the revenues available to a City of West Hill and the likely expenses such a city would incur. The assessment of annexation compares virtually all of the governmental services that would change upon annexation, comparing service levels and expenses for each service provided by King County with those of neighboring cities. Finally, to inform residents about what others in the area are thinking, the report includes results of a public survey of West Hill residents to identify current attitudes about both governmental preferences and the delivery of public services.
Study AreaThe area included in this Governance Alternatives study is the West Hill area, an area generally south of Lake Washington, west of Renton, and southeast of Seattle. The West Hill area is shown on the map on page 4 of the main body of the report.
What Are the Alternatives?Under the Growth Management Act, residents of urban unincorporated King County generally have three governance options:
2. Incorporate as a new city. 3. Annex to an adjoining city.
Preserving the Status QuoWhen asked what form of governance West Hill 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, 30 percent favored annexation, and only 4 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?"
Is preserving the status quo really an option?The answer to this question depends upon what one means when one says, "I want to preserve the status quo." If one means, simply, "I want to remain part of unincorporated King County." - then that is entirely possible. While State and county policies encourage unincorporated urban areas to pursue incorporated status, under current law it is not possible to force a community to either incorporate or annex to a neighboring city.If, on the other hand, one thinks of preserving the status quo as, "I want West Hill to remain unincorporated, and I want to continue receiving the same levels of public services." - then the status quo is probably not an option. Given the Growth Management Act statutes and the Countywide Planning Policies, at some point in the near future, King County will probably not be able to provide services to areas like West Hill at their current levels. As directed by state law, King County is now encouraging all unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary to pursue incorporated status. As more and more of these areas do so, the pool of revenues available to the County for providing local services will inevitably shrink. Given reduced resources and the evolution of the County's role toward providing only regional services, local services levels in West Hill will probably decline if it remains unincorporated. This report does not include an extensive analysis of the effects of maintaining the status quo in West Hill. Instead, it focuses on the two options for the area to achieve incorporated status: incorporation as a new city and annexation to an existing city.
Is Incorporation Feasible?The survey of West Hill residents showed that 66 percent of the respondents prefer that the area remain unincorporated as it is today, 30 percent favored annexation, and only 4 percent favored incorporation as a new city. When asked which alternative they would prefer if staying as it is were not an option, an overwhelming 84 percent of respondents favored annexation, while only 16 percent favored incorporation. Moreover, fiscal analysis indicates that the incorporation of West Hill is not financially feasible. Assuming existing tax rates, the revenues of an incorporated City of West Hill would not cover the costs for the services currently provided by King County. Given the lack of public support for incorporation and poor financial prospects of a new city, annexation is the most feasible path to incorporated status for West Hill.The incorporation analysis included in this report is based on a "same cost - same level of service" assumption. However, West Hill residents may decide they can make do with lower levels of services, or they could decide they are willing to tax themselves more heavily, thereby narrowing the gap between revenues and expenses.
What Would Annexation Mean for Residents of West Hill?More than half of the survey respondents(52%) chose Renton as the city to which they would prefer to annex. Less than one-third (29%) chose Seattle, and 13% chose Tukwila. Only 6% had no preference. When asked why they selected a particular city for annexation, the reason most often stated by respondents was that they more closely identified with the chosen city.Respondents to the survey indicated that they valued a range of both tangible and intangible services linked to their local governance. Of the intangible issues, many indicated that questions surrounding community image were important and had not yet been addressed to their satisfaction. Among the tangible services, respondents reported the most important were police, fire protection, and maintenance of roads and sidewalks. In addition, as one might expect, respondents indicated that they care a great deal about the level of local taxes. In the case of annexation, it is possible to compare some of the tangible services and costs in neighboring cities. In regard to police services, for example, one can ask, "When someone calls 911, how long does he or she have to wait before a police officer arrives?" Similarly, one might ask, "Given the quality of services a neighboring city's police department provides, how much does that service cost the city's residents?" How attractive a particular city looks for annexation depends on what services a resident most values. If low property taxes are important, then Seattle looks better than either Renton or King County. If police response time is important, then Renton looks the best.
Based on comparisons of a wide range of services, some of the more important findings include:
Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within:
I. Background II. What are the governance alternatives? III. Goals and objectives of the report IV. Report Organization V. Locator Map >> View Introduction and Report Organization:
Rich Text File.rtf (51 KB) >> View Locator Map
Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within:
I. Population II. Taxable Assessed Value >> View Chapter: General Characteristics of the Study Area
Rich Text Format.rtf (3,217 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within:
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
Rich Text Format.rtf (9,562 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within:
I. Is preserving the status quo really an option? >> View Chapter: Preserving the Status Quo
Rich Text Format.rtf (45 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
In fact, based on our analysis of West Hill'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 17. 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:
I. Does Incorporation of West Hill 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
Rich Text Format.rtf (199 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within:
I. General Outline of the Annexation Process II. What This Analysis Is About III. Methodology IV. Key Assumptions V. Levels of Service and Expenditures Per Capita VI. Limitations on Use of the Annexation Analysis
>> View Chapter: Analysis of Annexation
Rich Text Format.rtf (248 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> List of Combined Maps within Appendix A:
II. Fire District and Fire Stations Map III. Water and Sewer Agencies Map IV. School District and School Sites Map >> View Combined West Hill Maps
Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within Appendix B:
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:
Rich Text Format.rtf (134 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within Appendix C:
I. Incorporation II. Annexation III. Role of King County Boundary Review Board in Annexations and Incorporations
>> View Appendix C:
Rich Text Format.rtf (62 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> View Appendix D:
Rich Text Format.rtf (47 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> Sections within Appendix E:
I. The Annexation and Incorporation Process II. Adopted Annexation and Incorporation Policies III. Potential Annexation Area Program IV. 1997 Potential Annexation Area and Annexation and Incorporation Work Program
>> View Appendix E:
Rich Text Format.rtf (55 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
>> View Appendix F:
Rich Text Format.rtf (48 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
Rich Text Format.rtf (14,862 KB) Return to: Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home
If you have questions about the West Hill Project: 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. Portions of the West Hill Governance Options Report document are provided in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf). In order to view these documents you must have Acrobat Reader software installed on your computer. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on you computer you can obtain the installation file and instructions from the Adobe web site. Updated: Jan. 7, 2003
June 1999 Governance Transition Report
King County | Executive | News | Services | Comments | Search
Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||