Exec's home | News | Site map | E-mail
	Oct. 20, 2004 Sims unveils growth report; Progress made on 21st century vision for growth Decade of growth management, benchmarks working » 2004 Annual Growth Report » 2004 King County Benchmarks, Economics Report King County Executive Ron Sims today released the 2004 Annual Growth Report and the 2004 Benchmark Economics Bulletin which together herald tremendous successes from the past decade of growth management, outline continued challenges for the region, and show signs that the county is recovering from the recession. “Last week I presented by 2005 budget, containing a blueprint for the coming year’s policies and expenditures,” said Sims. “Today, I’m bringing you the numbers that support our blueprint. The foundation of that blueprint is a place of healthy people, a healthy economy, and healthy communities.”   Executive Sims presents the 2004 Annual Growth Report and 2004 Economics Benchmark Bulletin. Sims is joined by County Demographer Chandler Felt and Benchmark Project Manager Rose Curran. » Enlarged view of photo (122K .jpg) Washington State enacted its Growth Management Act (GMA) in the early 1990s, and King County subsequently adopted countywide planning policies and a comprehensive plan in 1994. The county’s ambitious plans and growth targets shaped a county that could support the economy while enhancing the quality of life in the region, Sims said. As a result, residential growth is increasingly focused in cities where urban infrastructure can support it, while in the rural areas a wall against sprawl now exists. “A decade ago, the 1994 growth report described King County as having: Rural areas with 13 percent of all building permits and 15 percent of lots in new residential subdivisions. No restrictions to prevent forest land from being subdivided for homes. And, increasing metropolitan sprawl, with 47 percent of new residential construction and 57 percent of new lot activity occurring in unincorporated areas. “Now, 10 years later, our growth management plans have borne fruit. The numbers in this 2004 Annual Growth Report demonstrate just how successful we’ve been in tackling those ambitious goals. We have: Accommodated the total state-forecasted population. Focused development in urban areas, not rural areas. Only four percent of last year’s residential growth was in rural areas, with 96 percent in the urban areas. Increased jobs and housing in designated urban centers, all within cities of King County; three additional urban centers were added. Preserved farms and resource lands, including an additional 90,000 acres of forest lands preserved in perpetuity near Snoqualmie. Rehabilitated habitat for salmon and other wildlife. Reduced unincorporated growth to just over 20 percent of the county’s growth. Increased residential densities in urban areas. Improved home ownership and rental affordability. “The ten year update to the King County Comprehensive Plan, which the King County Council passed in September, reinforced the county’s commitment to focusing growth in our urban corridors while protecting farms, forests and rural lands,” said Councilmember Dow Constantine, Chair of the Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee. “The Benchmark Report being released today shows that our efforts to date have been successful, and is a boost to those of us who want to keep the commitment to manage growth.” Growth management efforts helped effect these changes and shape a new kind of metropolitan county better suited to 21st century growth. But some growth-related impacts created other challenges and, as the county and its cities head into the second 10 years of growth management, key areas remain to be tackled. Annexations of Urban Unincorporated Areas: The creation of 10 new cities over the last decade, along with major annexations by a dozen other cities, caused a major population shift to occur. In 1989, almost 41 percent of county residents lived in unincorporated areas, where the majority of growth and development was occurring. With a population of 600,000, unincorporated King County was the largest jurisdiction in Washington State. Between 1989 and 2000 alone, nearly 330,000 individuals “moved” from unincorporated areas into city limits. Following this decade of incorporation and annexation, however, the 2000 U.S. Census counted just 350,000 people in unincorporated King County, barely 20 percent of the county total of 1.7 million. By 2004, barely 20 percent of the new residential growth, measured on a basis of new housing permits, occurred in unincorporated areas. This change in jurisdiction refocused energy and development activity into cities for the first time since World War II. Now, the 38 suburban cities outside Seattle contain 48 percent of the county’s population and more than half of the development activity. Throughout the incorporation process, older cities have gained renewed energy and have grown vigorously. In the last four years, however, the pace of annexation has slowed to a crawl. In 2003, cities annexed only 113 acres with 36 people. The remaining areas of urban unincorporated King County still have nearly 220,000 residents, a population that, if combined in one locale, would comprise Washington State’s second largest city. However, given the geographic separation of the remaining urban unincorporated areas, it is difficult for the county to provide local services to the residents as efficiently as cities do, and the county does not have the same revenue generating tools available to cities. “This shift has created a problem for King County. Providing services to these areas is costly and inefficient, so we have had to change to respond to this new configuration of growth. We have been in the business of urban service provider. However, the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the county and its cities in 1994 provide a vision where the county provides regional and rural services, while cities are the best equipped financially to provide local urban government services. That is why it is imperative we accelerate the annexation or incorporation of as many of these urban areas as soon as possible,” said Sims. “Failing to meet annexation targets will have significant budget implications for the county. Without anticipated annexations, the county will be forced to either reduce the level of local services it provides to unincorporated areas or cut regional services.” King County’s 2005 budget continues the effort to complete this process, outlining specific annexation transition strategies to facilitate the change as part of growth management and financial needs. In 2005, the county enters its second year of a multi-year initiative, partnering with cities, communities and the state legislature to accomplish annexations at a faster pace. In addition to the $10 million held in reserves in the 2005 budget for infrastructure needs of the Potential Annexation Areas, we will continue to seek additional funding sources to smooth the transition to city government, and, where appropriate, seeking changes in state annexation law. Updated Benchmark Reporting: The county’s progress in achieving Growth Management goals is documented in the annual Benchmark series. These include: Economic Development (released today): King County is weathering the recession, and there are some hopeful signs of recovery. Wages are up in real (after-inflation) dollars, the county is regaining jobs, and the median household income is higher than in 2000. There is, however, a greater disparity between the highest and lowest income groups now than there was in 1990, with more people living below the poverty level than a decade ago, and about 35 percent of households making do on less than the “living” or “family” wage for their household size. This year, 21 percent of students starting public high school drop out over a four year period, and only two-thirds of those starting together graduate with their class. Land Use Policy: King County records show 96 percent of all new housing units are inside the urban area, and 21 percent of the new units are in urban centers, approaching the goal that 25 percent of new units will be in those centers. Several of the dozen designated urban centers have demonstrated remarkable success, with public and private investment stimulating previously ignored downtown areas, serving as a catalyst for city development in general. Almost all commercial activity now occurs in cities and unincorporated areas now contain less than four percent of countywide jobs. Three new urban centers – Totem Lake (Kirkland), Auburn, and Burien – have been designated in the past two years, meeting the goal of attracting more development to urban centers in some suburban cities, with access to commerce, employment, and transportation. At least 44 percent of new residential units are built on redeveloped urban land. Single and multifamily residential densities have risen in the urban area, accommodating the growing population while consuming less new land. Environment: Loss of forest cover and net loss of wetland in King County has slowed to a standstill. Rural and forest areas remain relatively undeveloped and continue to provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect surface water flows, and offset the negative effects of emissions which drive climate change. Climate-change has become evident here in the Pacific Northwest, with the eight warmest years on record for the earth occurring in the past nine years. At least 55 percent of King County’s climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions are from motor vehicles. A multi-faceted approach is needed to reverse these trends including reducing vehicle fuel consumption and cleaning up emissions, providing alternative modes of transportation, shortening distances between work and home, and preserving trees and forest cover. Salmon are still endangered in King County, particularly in the urban-dominated watersheds. Many streams in the urban area are of poor or very poor quality, sometimes irreversibly so. However, streams and habitat in our rural areas are still of high quality, and salmonid in predominantly rural watersheds are recovering. These habitats continue to warrant active protection. King County residents continue to do well in conserving water, decreasing waste disposal, and increasing recycling. We recycle 55 percent of our residential waste, while the U.S. average for residential recycling is about 30 percent. Transportation: A combination of a recession-related decline in traffic, and some additional road and transit capacity, have contributed to reduced congestion and shorter commute times in the county over the last few years. The return of economic prosperity could make congestion worse than ever with 69 percent of residents still driving alone to work most of the time. To prevent transportation gridlock there is a need to accelerate improvements in public transportation, to provide pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, to reduce SOV usage, and to bring homes, work, and shopping closer together. In addition, nearly 29 percent of needed road repair and repavement gets deferred due to budget constraints, which could further add to future congestion and higher costs. Housing Affordability: With low interest rates and a healthy supply of new housing, buying a home is more affordable than over the last decade. More than 63,000 more people are homeowners than a decade ago. Rents declined over the last two years, because opportunities for home ownership have opened up for first-time buyers. As population growth slowed during the recent recession, rental housing supply exceeded demand, and vacancy rates have been higher than the very low levels of the late 1990s. There remains a large deficit of housing affordable to those earning under 40 percent of median income. At least 24,000 households in this income group will not be able to find affordable housing. There continue to be inequities in the geographic distribution of affordable housing. The cities and county provide low-income housing, but need exceeds funding. Many working families cannot afford housing in the north and Eastside, so they must live far from where they work. Both the Annual Growth Report and the Benchmark Economics Bulletin can be found online. Updated: Oct. 20, 2004 Executive's home Executive's news Executive's site map | E-mail the Executive King County | Executive | News | Services | Comments | Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details.