6.	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.  (See the discussion box below for a general outline of the annexation process.)
The Annexation Process 
There are three possible ways for unincorporated areas like West Hill to become engaged in the annexation process.
1)	Residents can request consideration by the Council of the annexing city and a subsequent public vote through a ten-percent petition.
2)	Residents can request annexation without a public referendum by gathering signatures of landowners in the proposed area of incorporation, as long as the combined value of the property owned by the signatories’ equals at least 60 percent of the total assessed value of the area.
3)	The Council of the potential annexing city can pass a resolution requesting a vote among residents of the proposed area of annexation.
For the first and third approaches, once the process has been initiated, the remaining steps are the same.  For both, the next step is to submit the resolution/petition to the county’s Boundary Review Board.  The review board will then hold a hearing where residents and a representative of the annexing city will have the opportunity to be heard.  Following this hearing, the Board will approve, disapprove, or suggest a revision to the boundaries of the proposed annexation.  If approved, a vote among area residents determines the ultimate success or failure of  the proposed annexation.
In contrast to two approaches outlined above, the second approach to annexation does not ultimately require a public referendum.  Under this alternative, after initiators gather the required signatures, the question of annexation is taken up, first by the City Council, and then in a public hearing by the county’s Boundary Review Board.  If both bodies find in favor of the city annexing the area, annexation will move forward.
Respondents to our survey indicated that they valued a range of both tangible and intangible services that are inextricably linked to their local governance.  Among the tangible services, they indicated that among the most important were police, fire protection, and maintenance of roads and sidewalks.  Of the intangible issues, respondents indicated that questions surrounding community image were important, and at the same time, these issues have not yet been addressed to their satisfaction.  In addition, as one might expect, respondents indicated that they care a great deal about the level of local taxes.
Ultimately, the value a person places on a particular service, and the degree to which local government delivers that service at a satisfactory level, are subjective questions.  As such, it is impossible for any analysis to state unequivocally that one provider of services is superior to another.  Rather, the best we can do is to present readers with the most complete information possible, comparing different measures of how services are delivered, and at what cost, ultimately allowing each reader to reach his or her own conclusions about which jurisdiction they want to provide their local governance.
To provide readers with this kind of information, in the following section we compare the year 2000 annexation alternatives for the West Hill area in 71 different ways, including levels of service, expenditures per capita, and taxes and charges.  The results are mixed, with one city appearing to do better than another and the unincorporated service provider on a number of variables, while other variables show the other city, the County, or a special district doing the better job.  On several of the variables there was no difference, or the results were mixed among different measures of the same variable.
As a result of our research and analysis, we conclude that the best annexation alternative is determined by each reader's priorities among the 71 variables reported in this study.
What This Analysis Is About
This is a study of annexation alternatives for the West Hill area.  It provides information about the differences and similarities of two annexation alternatives: Renton and Seattle.  The City of Tukwila did not participate in the study.  It describes the levels of service, government expenditures, taxes, and fees that a resident of the West Hill area would expect if they annexed to either city.
Methodology
This study is designed to make comparisons between annexation to Renton or Seattle and existing services provided by unincorporated King County and special districts.  The key to the study was the selection of the variables used to compare the governance alternatives.  The variables were selected by the consultant, after conferring with staff of each local government (county, cities, and special districts).  The variables we selected for this study meet our criteria:
•	Readily understandable by citizens
•	Data is readily available from the providers of services and facilities
•	Each variable accurately portrays the service or facility
This study of governance alternatives for the West Hill area considered 71 variables: 31 level of service variables, 7 financial variables, 13 operating cost per capita variables, and 20 capital cost per capita variables.
Indicators of local services have several limitations.  For example, the indicators tend to emphasize quantity as opposed to quality.  Some measures are better at capturing quality than others.  For example, criminal investigations per 1,000 population measures the quantity of work, but used comparatively it suggests some qualitative difference between law enforcement agencies, or at least between the communities they serve.  By comparison, park acres per 1,000 population says nothing about the design, use, maintenance, enjoyment, or programming that make such sites more (or less) desirable places for recreation or leisure time.
Another limitation of service indicators is that they tend to be ratios of services or facilities to population, but not to employment.  This is primarily because (1) relatively few indicators have been developed based on employment, and (2) data measuring existing and future employment is more difficult to obtain than population data.  The absence of employment-driven indicators has substantially greater impact on areas with high ratios of employment to population (i.e., Seattle) than on areas with very low ratios (i.e., the West Hill area).  At a minimum, the data showing expenditures per capita will appear higher than they really are for services that have significant use and/or benefit to employees and employers (i.e., police and fire) because the cost is being reported as though it was allocated only among the population whereas it should be allocated among the population and employees.  Further complicating the issue is the volume of visitors, customers, clients, patients, and others who use and/or benefit from public services and facilities, but for whom there is no reliable estimate of the numbers of such individuals, nor the proportion of service benefits that are attributable to them.
An important consideration is that we focused on variables for services and facilities that have the potential to change as a result of changes in governance.  We did not develop variables for services and facilities that probably would not change under different forms of governance (i.e., schools, state roads, mass transit, etc.).
The data we use in this study was provided by King County, the cities of Renton and Seattle, Fire District 20, the King County Library System (district), Waste Management Rainier, the Skyway-Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District and Water District 125.

Key Assumptions
Understanding the assumptions of a study is important to understanding the findings and conclusions of the study.  The assumptions described below are an important part of this study.
Annexation Levels of Service, Expenditures, and Taxes
We assume that Renton and Seattle will provide the same services and charge the same taxes to the West Hill area as they provide/charge to residents and businesses in the existing city limits of each city.
We recognize that it may not be possible for a City to provide the same level of service to an annexed area.  This may be due to peculiarities of the annexation area (i.e., exceptional distance from existing city services or the absence of previous infrastructure investment in the area) or changes in the city's level of service situation in that growth within the existing city limits has outstripped the city's ability to sustain its "existing" level of service for its own residents.  An analysis of these, and other relevant explanations is beyond the scope of this study.
Services or Facilities That Do Not Change as a Result of Annexation
We have analyzed only those services and facilities that could change as a result of a change in governance.  These include: law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, roads, stormwater, water, sewer, parks, human services, and land use regulation.
We have excluded the following services and facilities that would not change as a result of annexation:
•	Schools
•	State Roads
•	Transit
We also assume that the cities of Renton and Seattle will not change the services and facilities that they currently provide.
Annexation Plans of Cities
We assume that it is possible for the West Hill area to annex to Renton or Seattle.  Both cities have adopted policies concerning annexation in their comprehensive plans.

levels of service and expenditures per capita
Levels of Service
The tables in this section list key indicators for each of the following governmental services. 
1.   Animal Control	9.   Police	
2.   Corrections	10. Roads/Streets	
3.   Courts	11. Sewer	
4.   Fire and Emergency Medical Services	12. Solid Waste	
5.   Human Services	13. Stormwater	
6.   Library	14. Water	
7.   Parks and Recreation		
8.   Planning and Land Use Regulation		

In each table below, the indicator is listed in the first column, and the data appears in columns to the right, below the names of the area, city or district for which the data is reported.  Each indicator is reported for the City of Renton, the City of Seattle, and King County (or any district serving the unincorporated West Hill area).
If a column heading shows the name of an area or City and also includes “(King County)”, it means that King County is the provider of the service.  King County has reported data that is specific for each city or area served for the following services: human services, parks and recreation, police, roads and streets, and stormwater.  The County has reported only county-wide averages, rather than specific calculations for each city or area, for the following services: animal control, corrections, courts, library, and planning and land use regulation.  The County does not maintain information by community or area for these services.
The indicators measure levels of service, annual operating costs per capita, the annual average capital expenditures for the past 5 years, and the annual average of capital improvements planned for the next 6 years.  For two services, planning and land use regulation, and police, no information is provided about capital improvements because those services do not involve significant capital investments.  For two other services, corrections, and courts, there was not sufficient information about capital costs to report those indicators.
In the tables below, higher costs may translate into "better" service (i.e., greater quantity, quality, speed, customer service, etc.), or they may indicate a public service that is less efficient.  Smaller governments often have higher costs per capita because they have the same "fixed costs" (i.e., core staff and facilities) regardless of the size of the agency.  These costs, when divided by small populations, produce higher costs per capita.
Comparison of infrastructure investments is much more difficult to interpret than comparisons of operating costs per capita.  Capital expenditures vary dramatically from year to year in individual local governments.  A better measure would be the current (replacement) value per capita of each infrastructure system.  Such a calculation would require a complete inventory of each infrastructure system, and a method for determining its current (replacement) value.  This data is not generally available from local governments.
Using readily available data, we calculated the annual capital costs per capita using multi-year time horizons in order to minimize the effect of fluctuations in local infrastructure needs and expenditures.  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.
1. Animal Control
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Animal control services are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, animal control would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own animal control service.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Animal Control Complaints and Calls for Service per 1,000 Population • Total animal control complaints and calls divided by population (times 1,000)	18.66	41.97	34.5	
B.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 2.36	$ 1.87	$ 3.63	
C.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	no CIP	$ 1.92	not reported	
D.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$ 0.053	$ 1.75	not reported	

A. Animal Control Complaints and Calls for Service per 1,000 Population:  Generally, the higher the number of calls per 1,000 population, may indicate a “better” level of service because of greater responsiveness of the local government, or it may indicate a bigger problem with animals in the community that lead to the higher levels of calls for service.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
B. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for animal control programs were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  Cost per capita should be viewed in the context of call load (see indicator A): high call load and low cost per capita may indicate superior efficiency, or it can indicate overburdened staff with little time for each call for service.  Conversely, lower call loads and higher cost per capita may indicate more time per call for service, which can indicate less efficiency, but may indicate higher quality.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
C. and D. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
Summary of Animal Control
The King County receives far fewer animal control complaints per capita than Seattle or Renton, but caution must be used with the County number since it represents the average of the entire unincorporated area, and is not specific to the West Hill area.  The lowest operating cost per capita is in Renton, which also has the highest rate of complaints.
2. Corrections
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Correctional facilities and services are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, corrections would be provided by the City of Renton, which has its own correctional facility, or by King County, which contracts to serve the City of Seattle.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle
(King County)	
A.	Correctional Facility Beds per 1,000 Population • Total beds in correctional facilities operated by the jurisdiction divided by population (times 1,000)	1.973	1.081	1.973	
B.	Operating Cost per Incarcerated Person per Day • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by number of incarcerated person-days	$ 76.92	$ 40.00	$ 76.92	
C.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 10.47	$ 26.22	$ 26.96	

A. Correctional Facility Beds per 1,000 Population:  This indicator measures the capacity of the jail system, not its actual use.  Renton is one of the few cities in King County that operates its own correctional facility; most cities contract with King County for jail services.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
B. Operating Cost per Incarcerated Person per Day:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for corrections facilities were divided by the total number of incarcerated person-days (one person in jail one day) in order to calculate this indicator.  This procedure was requested of each entity that reported data (King County and Renton).  It appears, however, that the County’s data include per diem costs and booking fees, which may reflect annual average costs rather than per diem costs.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
C. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for corrections facilities were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County and Renton).  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.  Renton’s higher cost per capita is likely due to the fact that they have "fixed costs" (i.e., core staff and facilities) similar to King County, but these costs, when divided by Renton’s much smaller population, produces higher costs per capita.
Summary of Corrections
The data for “beds per 1,000 population” and “operating costs per incarcerated person” for West Hill and Seattle are countywide averages of the entire area served by King County, including all unincorporated areas, and many cities that contract with the County for correctional service.  Renton’s higher cost per incarcerated person may be due to fewer economies of scale because its facility is significantly smaller than King County’s.  In terms of operating cost per capita, Seattle and Renton report similar numbers.
3. Courts
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Local court services are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, local courts would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own courts.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Annual Cases per Judge • Total cases divided by judges
	Annual Cases per Magistrate	8,604	14,044	3,035

1,923	
B.	Average Calendar Days Between Initial Filing and Date of Trial • Days between initial filing and date of trial of all cases divided by number of cases
	Criminal
	Civil
	Infraction	

90-365
180-365
60-90	

105

50	

29%   <30
46%=30-180
25% >181	
C.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 10.81	$ 18.07	$ 33.40	

A. Annual Cases per Judge:  This indicator shows the average caseload for a local judge in each court system.  Higher caseloads are more “efficient” but they reduce the amount of time the judge can spend on each case.  Renton occasionally uses a magistrate, but the data was reported as the average for their judge, and data for the magistrate was not separately reported.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
B. Average Calendar Days Between Initial Filing and Date of Trial:  Calendar days indicate how crowded court dockets are, and the ability to get access to the judicial system in a timely manner.  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.  Seattle’s data is reported for all types of trials, and is expressed as the percentage of cases that are tried within the time range indicated (i.e., 29% of the trials begin in less than 30 days after they are filed, 46% begin between 31 and 180 days after filing, and 25% begin 181 or more days after filing.
C. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for courts were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.  Seattle’s higher cost per capita is due to the fact that they have included the cost of probation in their court costs.
Summary of Courts
There are very wide differences in the courts data for King County, Renton and Seattle.  Renton has a very heavy case load per judge, yet does not have the lowest operating cost per capita.  Despite Renton’s caseload, it does significantly better than King County in calendering cases.  Seattle, which has the lightest case load per judge also has the highest cost per capita.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Fire and basic life support emergency medical services are currently provided to the West Hill area by Fire District 20.  In the event of annexation, there are two ways these services could be provided: (1) the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) could use its own fire department, adding district personnel, stations and fire trucks as provided by law, or (2) the annexing city could contract with Fire District 20 to continue to provide service in the West Hill area.
Advanced life support emergency medical services are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County Medic One, which will continue to provide this service in the event of annexation.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	Fire District # 20 (West Hill)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Average Response Time (Structure Fire) • Minutes (m) and seconds (s) between dispatch and arrival	5m 30s	3m 30s	4m 24s	
B.	Insurance Fire Rating (Scale = 1, best to 10, worst) • ISO Survey and Rating Bureau	5	3	2	
C.	Average Response Time (ALS) [King County Medic One] • Minutes (m) and seconds (s) between dispatch and arrival – advanced life support calls	11m 42s	4m 45s	4m 5s	
D.	Average Response Time (BLS) • Minutes (m) and seconds (s) between dispatch and arrival – basic life support call	6m 0s	4m 45s	3m 52s	
E.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 62.03	$ 176.67	$ 149.00	
F.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$ 17.07	$  25.50	$   1.79	
G.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$ 18.28	$  15.06	$   2.09	
H.	Fire District Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	$  1.49	not applicable	not applicable	

A. Average Response Time - Structure Fire:  Generally, an initial response time of 5-6 minutes (or lower) for structure calls is optimum for life threatening fire incidents. Data for each jurisdiction represents average elapsed time between dispatch of a unit and arrival of fire suppression personnel at the scene of the incident.  
B. Insurance Fire Rating.  The Insurance Fire Rating is defined and determined by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) using national standards developed in 1974.  The numerical rating represents the effectiveness of fire suppression services within a specific geographic area (e.g., municipality or fire district). Ratings are on a scale of 1 - 10, with 1 the best, and 10 the worst.  A lower number generally corresponds to lower insurance premiums for the fire insurance portion of property damage insurance.  A significant portion of the rating is attributable to the water supply system (which is outside the control of the fire service agency).
C and D. Average Response Time - Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Calls:  Generally, an initial response time of 5-6 minutes (or lower) for EMS calls (Basic/Advanced Life Support) is optimum for life threatening incidents. Data for each jurisdiction represents average elapsed time between dispatch of a unit and arrival of emergency medical personnel at the scene of an incident. 
E. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for Fire District 20 were divided by the District’s population in order to calculate its per capita cost.  The same procedure was used for each city (Renton and Seattle) to divide its operating (non-capital) costs by its population to calculate its per capita cost.  Fire districts often have lower costs per capita because they have less money to spend.  Their main source of revenue is a property tax levy that is limited to $1.50 per $1,000 of taxable value.  By comparison, cities have many sources of revenue they can use to pay for their fire departments.  One way that fire districts serve their constituents with less money is to use volunteers or cross-staffing (the practice of assigning a single crew to more than one apparatus, with the crew taking the apparatus that is most appropriate to the type of call).
F. and G. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Fire District 20, Renton and Seattle).
H. Fire District Levy Rate per $1,000 Taxable Assessed Value:  Both Renton and Seattle operate their own fire departments and therefore have neither fire districts nor fire district levies.  Rather, the cities of Seattle and Renton incorporate the costs of their fire departments in their city budgets.  Simultaneously, because they provide their own fire protection services, these cities are allowed to increase their city levy rate.  (Cities that provide their own fire protection services are generally allowed to increase their base city levy rate by $1.50 per $1,0000 of assessed value).  
Summary of Fire and Emergency Services
The existing fire district in West Hill, Fire District # 20, has significantly lower operating costs per capita than Renton or Seattle, and it provides response times that are significantly slower.  Fire District #20 also received a lower Insurance Fire Rating.  Renton’s fire department provides by far the fastest response times, and Seattle received a slightly better Insurance Rating.  Seattle provides this level of service at a lower per capita operating cost than Renton.
5. Human Services
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Human service programs are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, human services would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own programs.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Human Service Program Expenditures per Recipient • Total expenditures on human service programs divided by recipients receiving assistance	NA	$ 90.71	not reported	
B.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	Not reported	$ 4.29	$133.00	
C.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	Not reported	$ 44.75	$ 45.00	
D.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	Not reported	$ 44.03	$ 39.00	

A. Human Service Program Expenditures per Recipient:  This indicator is calculated by dividing the dollar amount of each jurisdiction’s Human Services Department’s expenditures by the number of people who received human service program assistance.  This data is often difficult to track because of the way information is kept.  Viewed in isolation, higher numbers mean more support per recipient, but the community’s level of effort is also measured by the next indicator, “Operating Cost per Capita.”
B. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for human service programs were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Renton and Seattle).  This indicator is difficult to use, given the data provided by each entity.  Seattle included all sources of funding: local, state and federal.  Renton included local funding.  King County did not report any data.
C. and D. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Renton and Seattle).  King County did not report any capital expenditures for human services.
Summary of Human Services
Data about human services is sketchy, and it appears that different definitions were used by each local government.  As a result, it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from this data.  This is an area that needs more work and should be targeted for further attention.
6. Library
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Public libraries and library services are currently provided to the West Hill area by a large district, the King County Library System, that serves all of unincorporated King County, and most of the cities in the County.  The cities of Renton and Seattle have their own libraries, and are not part of the district.  In the event of annexation, libraries would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own library.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(KCLS)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Collection Size (Books) per Capita • Total copies in collection divided by population	3.42	3.13	3.5	
B.	Library Square Footage per Capita • Total library building size divided by population	0.23	0.62	0.63	
C.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 37.45	$ 25.60	$ 50.77	
D.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$  7.14	$  1.15	$ 70.21	
E.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$  7.86	$  1.60	$  5.61	

A. Collection Size (Books) per Capita:  This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of volumes (including duplicate copies of the same title) by the number of people in the jurisdiction. Higher numbers are better, providing a larger collection of materials per person.
B. Library Square Footage per Capita:  This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of square feet of all libraries in a jurisdiction by the number of people in the jurisdiction. Higher numbers are better, providing more library facilities per person.
C. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for all the jurisdiction’s libraries were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County Library System, Renton and Seattle).  King County Library System’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
D. and E. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County Library System, Renton and Seattle).  In 1998, Seattle voters approved a large bond issue to build a new main library, and to make significant improvements at branch libraries.  This “once in a generation” investment is the reason that Seattle’s planned capital expenditures per capita are so much higher than any other entity, or than Seattle’s historical expenditures.
Summary of Library Services
Indicators of current levels of library services – collection size and library footage per capita – indicate that Seattle and Renton are approximately the same.  While King County’s provides a similar collection size, the actual library space it provides per resident is significantly lower than either Seattle or Renton.  Since the City of Seattle is embarking on a “once in a generation” investment in its library system, one might expect that its service indicators will rise even higher in the near future.  Regarding expenditures, whether one looks at operating costs or planned capital investment, Renton’s expenditures per capita are the smallest by a wide margin, followed by King County and then Seattle.
7. Parks and Recreation
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Public parks and recreational programs are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, parks and recreation would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own parks department.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Active Park Land Acres per 1,000 Population • Total acres of “developed” parks for active uses divided by population (times 1,000)	1.64	9.65	3.15	
B.	Passive Park Land Acres per 1,000 Population • Total acres of “undeveloped” natural parks and open space divided by population (times 1,000)	0.21	16.62	8.34	
C.	Trail Miles per 1,000 Population • Total miles of trail system divided by population (times 1,000)	None	0.26	0.10	
D.	Athletic Fields per 1,000 Population • Total fields (all types) divided by population (times 1,000)	0.3	0.43	0.34	
E.	Swimming Pools per 1,000 Population • Total swimming pools divided by population (times 1,000	None	0.0	0.02	
F.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 14.13	$ 203.01	$ 138.80	
G.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$       0	$  54.91	$    5.06	
H.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$ 16.21	$  53.26	$  12.01	

A. and B. Park Land (Active vs. Passive) Acres per 1,000 Population:  The level of service for each jurisdiction represents the current inventory of park acres divided by each jurisdiction’s population.  Higher numbers are better, representing more park acres per 1,000 population.
The current inventory of active/passive parks acres does not include any parks outside the jurisdiction that may be used by area residents, including major regional parks provided by the County.  Specifically, the acres attributed to King County includes only those parks located within the geographic boundaries of the West Hill area study area.
C. Trails Miles per 1,000 Population:  The level of service for each jurisdiction represents the current inventory of trail miles divided by the jurisdiction’s population.  Higher numbers mean more trail miles per 1,000 population.  The current inventory of miles of trails for the unincorporated King County West Hill area include both improved and unimproved trails.
D. and E. Sports Facilities (Athletic Fields and Swimming Pools) per 1,000 Population:  The level of service for each jurisdiction represents the current inventory of the number of sports facilities divided by the jurisdiction’s population.  Higher numbers mean more sports facilities per 1,000 population.  The current inventory of athletic fields for the City of Renton includes 4 high school fields.
F. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for parks and recreation programs were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle). The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
G. and H. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
Summary of Parks and Recreation
Renton has by far the highest levels of service for its parks system, and its citizens pay for it in the form of the highest operating and capital expenditures per capita.  Seattle’s parks data is not as good as Renton’s but both cities have higher service levels than King County.  The County’s third place finish is due to its policy of holding down, and sometimes reducing the County’s budget for parks and the County’s mission as the provider of regional parks, but not local parks.
8. Planning and Land Use Regulation
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Land use planning and regulation are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, land use planning and regulation would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own planning, development, and code enforcement departments.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Employees per 1,000 population • Planning and land use employees divided by population (times 1,000)	0.284	0.435	0.48	
B.	Major Permit Processing Turnaround Time (days) • Calendar days from receipt of application to final disposition	55	84-112	120.6	
C.	Minor Permit Processing Turnaround Time (days) • Calendar days from receipt of application to final disposition	26	42-56	1	
D.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 28.88	$ 34.97	$ 51.82	

A. Employees per 1,000 Population: This LOS is calculated by dividing the number of employees performing land use planning and regulatory functions in each jurisdiction by the jurisdiction’s current population.  A higher LOS (i.e., more employees per 1,000 population) may provide more time available per employee to assist the public, but it may also be an indication that there is more forceful regulation of land use.  There does not appear to be a relationship between staffing levels and the amount of time required for processing permits.
B. and C. Permit Processing Turnaround Time (Days):  These indicators measure the turnaround time for both major (e.g., large commercial/multi-family buildings, etc.) and minor (e.g., tenant improvements, basic house plan single family residence, etc.) construction projects.  Fewer days means faster response to applicants.
D. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for planning and land use were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  The County’s data is the countywide average for the unincorporated area and all its contract cities, and is not specific to the West Hill area.
Summary of Planning and Land Use Services
King County has the best record in this area.  It has the smallest staff and cost per capita, but it has the quickest turnaround time for processing major and minor permits.  Renton and Seattle have virtually the same staff per capita, but Seattle’s cost per capita is much higher, and it’s turnaround time is the worst.
9. Police
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Police services are currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, police services would be provided by the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own police department.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Dispatched Calls for Service per Officer • Total dispatched calls divided by patrol officers	200	925.42	263	
B.	Response Time: Emergency Calls • Minutes (m) and seconds (s) between dispatch and arrival – emergency (priority 1) calls	5m 4s	3m 34s
	9m 6s	
C.	Response Time: Non-Emergency Calls • Minutes (m) and seconds (s) between dispatch and arrival – non-emergency (priority 2 or lower) calls	32m+	16m 23s	not available	
D.	Criminal Investigations per 1,000 Population (Part 1 Crimes) • Total part 1 crimes divided by population (times 1,000)	54.85	108	105.1	
E.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 184.97	$ 214.00	$ 247.70	

A. Dispatched Calls for Service per Officer:  This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of dispatched calls for service (which excludes calls that do not result in a dispatch) by the number of sworn police officers assigned to patrol.  Lower number of calls per officer mean that the officer has more time to spend per call, and more time between calls for preventive patrol.  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
B. Response Time - Emergency Calls:  Data for each jurisdiction represents the average elapsed time between dispatch of a unit and arrival of officer(s) at the scene of an emergency incident.  Data for Renton and Seattle are for the current city limits, and data for King County is for the West Hill area.  Seattle’s average response time is for all calls, emergency and otherwise, so it is not directly comparable to the emergency response times reported by the other jurisdictions.  King County Sheriff emergency calls are defined as “critical” (event posing obvious danger to life of officer/citizen and felony crimes in progress), or “Priority 1” (requires immediate police action such as silent alarms, injury accidents, disturbances involving weapons, etc.).  The County's classification of "Critical" and "Priority 1" are similar to, but not identical to the city's "emergency" call.  A lower response time means that an officer(s) arrives more quickly at the scene of an incident to provide emergency services, which is particularly critical when the incident poses danger to the life of a citizen or an officer.  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
C. Response Time - Non Emergency Calls:  Data for each jurisdiction represents the average elapsed time between dispatch of a unit and arrival of officer(s) at the scene of an incident that is not an emergency.  King County Sheriff non-emergency calls are defined primarily as "Priority 2" (prompt dispatch to less critical situations such as verbal disturbances, shoplifting, audible alarms, etc.), or “Priority 3” (routine dispatch for which time is not a crucial factor (burglary, vandalism, theft, etc.).  The County's classification of "Priority 2" and "Priority 3" are similar to, but not identical to the city's "non-emergency" call.  Data for King County is for the West Hill area.
D. Criminal Investigations per 1,000 Population (Part 1 Crimes):  Part 1 Crimes include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  Lower numbers indicate fewer crimes being investigated per 1,000 population.  This is generally assumed to mean that there is a lower crime rate, although an additional factor is the availability of investigators.
E. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for police were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.  Operating costs for all entities exclude the cost of correctional facilities and services.
Summary of Police Services
The King County Sheriff’s’ Department conducts only 55 criminal investigations per 1,000 people in West Hill versus 105 for Seattle and 108 for Renton.  This difference suggests that overall crime rates in West Hill are lower than in either neighboring city.  One should take care in reaching this conclusion, however, since West Hill has significantly less commercial activity per capita that its neighbors.  Per capita crime rates may be lower in West Hill because there are fewer opportunities to commit property crimes in stores and businesses.  One would expect that the low number of investigations in West Hill plays a role in allowing King County to keep per capita operating costs significantly below both Renton and Seattle.  When emergency calls are received, however, Renton’s police department provides response times that are significantly faster than King County (the only other jurisdiction with a comparable number), and it does so at a cost per resident below that of Seattle.
10. Roads/Streets
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Roads and streets are currently maintained, repaired, and built in the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, roads and streets would be the responsibility of the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own public works department.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Traffic Congestion Standard (at evening rush hour): scale = A – F, with A best, F worst • Level of service standard (i.e., lowest acceptable ratio of volume to capacity)	E	Travel Time Index*	E	
B.	Years Between Overlays or Resurfacing: Arterials • Can be range of years	7-15	7	30-40	
C.	Years Between Overlays or Resurfacing: Local Streets • Can be range of years	15-25	15-25	n.a.	
D.	Operating Cost per Capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by population	$ 25.87	$ 86.23	$ 30.90	
E.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$ 11.44	$ 293.69	$ 51.48	
F.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$ 15.70	$ 123.39	$ 64.08	
* Pursuant to Renton’s adopted comprehenswive plan, its level of service measure is based on travel time, measured by the distance that can be traveled in 30 minutes in different modes of travel (i.e., single occupancy vehicle, high occupancy vehicle, and transit).
A. Traffic Congestion Standard (at Evening Rush Hour) for Arterial Streets:  The traditional methods for evaluating and determining the level of service (LOS) for a roadway are documented in the Highway Capacity Manual.  Generally, the level of service is rated on a scale from “A” to “F”, much like academic grading.  LOS “A” through “C” implies free flow traffic with minimal delays, while LOS “D” and “E” imply unstable traffic flow with significant delays.  LOS “F” implies forced unstable traffic flow with the potential for substantial delays.
King County’s level of service standard is referred to as the Transportation Adequacy Measure (TAM).  It is a system-wide evaluation of the arterial congestion serving a zone or service area.  The TAM score is an average of the volume to capacity ratio of all roadways during the PM peak hour from a zone to all other zones.  The TAM averaged score is compared to the adopted Transportation Service Area, level of service standards in the Comprehensive Plan. The West Hill area has a TAM average Level of Service standard of E. Generally, in the more urbanized areas within King County, the LOS for traffic congestion typically ranges from “D” to “E”, while the LOS in rural areas ranges from “C” to “D”.  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
Renton’s level of service measure is based on travel time, measured by the distance that can be traveled in 30 minutes in different modes of travel (i.e., single occupancy vehicle, high occupancy vehicle, and transit).
B. and C. Years Between Overlays or Resurfacing:  This indicator shows the frequency of major maintenance of arterial roads and local streets.  If other considerations are equal (i.e., road base material and condition), a more frequent schedule of overlay will provide "better" road surfaces.  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
D. Operating Cost per Capita:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for roads and streets were divided by the total population in order to calculate per capita cost.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle). The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
E. and F. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  Costs may include grant revenues and/or participation by Washington's Department of Transportation.  The County’s data is specific to the West Hill area.
Summary of Roads Services
Of the three jurisdictions, Renton spends substantially more per resident on maintaining its roads.  Renton has also invested more in capital improvements in recent years, followed by Seattle.  In addition, Renton plans to invest even more heavily in the immediate future.  Since Renton uses a different measurement standard to track congestion, and since Seattle does not report “years between resurfacing local streets,” the only service indicator common to all three jurisdictions is “years between resurfacing arterials.”  For this indicator, Renton shows the best performance with a seven year interval, King County follows with a reported 7 – 15, and Seattle trails the group with a 30 – 40 year interval.
11. Sewer
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Sewer services are currently provided to the West Hill area by the Skyway-Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District.  In the event of annexation, there are two ways sewer services could be provided: (1) the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) could use its own utility department, adding district personnel and facilities as provided by law, or (2) the annexing city could contract with the Skyway-Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District to continue to provide service in the West Hill area.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	Skyway District	Bryn Mawr District	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Average Monthly Cost of Sewer Service per Equivalent Residential Unit • Average monthly bill for  combined treatment and collection cost	$   35.45	$  30.65	$ 31.39	$ 24.72	
B.	Operating Cost per Equivalent Residential Unit • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by ERUs	$ 322.93	$ 290.65	$  7.27	$ 23.92	
C.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$ 116.56	$  51.03	$ 35.00	$  6.51	
D.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$  32.43	$  21.63	$ 71.00	$  6.51	

A. Average Monthly Cost of Sewer Service per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU):  An “Equivalent Residential Unit” (ERU) is a measuring tool used in sewer and water utilities.  It is a unit of measure, much like inches, gallons, acres, etc., but it measures an “average household” (i.e., it is equivalent to the amount of sewage generated by one typical single family house).  All other sewer system customers are measured by the number of ERUs they equal (i.e., a business that is 8.5 ERUs generates sewage equal to 8 and one/half houses).  Some variation in data will occur between jurisdictions because of different assumptions about the amount of sewage generated by one ERU.  Local agencies use a range of 600 – 750 cubic feet per ERU.  Using a higher cubic footage causes the monthly cost to increase, using a lower cubic footage causes the monthly cost to decrease.
B. Operating Cost per Equivalent Residential Unit:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for sewer were divided by the total number of ERUs in order to calculate the cost per ERU.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Skyway and Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer Districts, Renton and Seattle).  This number differs from indicator A, above, in that this is an annual cost, and it excludes any capital costs.
C. and D. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Skyway and Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District, Renton and Seattle).  Capital costs were calculated per capita, rather than per ERU.
Summary of Sewer Services
Seattle has the lowest average monthly cost, and the second lowest operating cost per equivalent residential unit.  The City has very low recent investment and equally low planned future investment per capita in its sewer system.  Renton made the greatest investment per capita in its physical assets (capital improvements), and is falling back to middle of the pack for the next 6 years.
Recently the Skyway and Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer Districts merged.  The merged districts expect to provide more efficient service by “creating one streamlined operation with increased equipment and resources,” thereby decreasing per capita operating costs.
12. Solid Waste
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Solid waste collection services are currently provided to the West Hill area by Waste Management Rainier.  In the event of annexation, solid waste collectors are allowed to continue to serve an area for 7 years before an annexing city can become responsible for the service.  After 7 years, the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) could provide solid waste collection services.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	Waste Management Rainier	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Frequency of Service – Garbage	Weekly	Weekly	Weekly	
B.	Frequency of Service – Recycle	Weekly	Weekly	Monthly (south); Weekly (north)	
C.	Frequency of Service – Yard Waste (March – November)	Weekly	Weekly	Weekly	
D.	Frequency of Service – Yard Waste (December – February)	Monthly	Weekly	Monthly	
E.	Monthly Cost – Garbage (One Can) and Recycle	$ 14.10	$ 12.55	$ 16.10	
F.	Monthly Average Cost – Yard Waste (60 – 64 gal.)	$  7.96	Included with garbage cost	$  4.33	
G.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	not reported	None	$  5.73	
H.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	not reported	None	$  5.08	

A., B., C. and D. Frequency of Service:  This indicator shows the frequency of several types of solid waste collection services: garbage, recycling and yard waste.  A more frequent schedule of collection provides "better" service.
E. and F. Monthly Cost:  These indicators show the amount that is charged each month for the service described in the indicator.
G. and H. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Renton reported having zero capital expenditures, and Seattle reported its expenditures).
Summary of Solid Waste Services
Solid waste services are mandatory in the cities of Renton and Seattle and optional in unincorporated King County.  Solid waste collection schedules are virtually identical among Seattle, Renton and Waste Management Rainier.  Costs, however, are not similar, with Renton’s garbage service the least expensive at $12.55 per month, followed by Waste Management Rainier at $14.10, and Seattle is the most expensive at $16.10.  If one elects to have yard waste pick-up, the difference between Renton and Seattle and unincorporated King County is even greater.
13. Stormwater
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Stormwater control and response is currently provided to the West Hill area by King County.  In the event of annexation, stormwater management would be the responsibility of the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) because each city provides its own public works department.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	West Hill
(King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Stormwater Standard • benchmark or criteria used to evaluate response to stormwater volume, velocity, and affect on water quality	Water Quality & Flow Control	King County Water Quality & Flow Control	25 year storm	
B.	Operating Cost per Single Family Unit • Annual cost (excluding capital) per single family dwelling	$ 85.02	$ 49.00	$ 36.54	
C.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	Budgeted annually	$ 56.75	$ 36.15	
D.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$  6.41	$ 54.00	$  8.22	

A. Stormwater Standard:  Generally, stormwater design standards represent flooding prevention thresholds (e.g., 100 year/24 hour storm) for individual geographic basins in order to (1) provide for adequate drainage in new construction to maintain passable roads in large storms and prevent damage to structures, and (2) maintain stormwater collection systems in order to minimize damage during storms.  Typically, design standards will vary from basin to basin.
B. Operating Cost per Single Family Unit:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for stormwater were divided by the total number of single family units in order to calculate the cost per ERU.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).
C. and D. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (King County, Renton and Seattle).  King County budgets its capital expenditures for stormwater on an annual basis.  There is no 6-year CIP projection.
Summary of Stormwater Services
Renton’s capital investment in its stormwater system has been much greater than Seattle or King County.  It may be that the capital expenditures are helping it keep its operating costs lower than King County.  Seattle is the middle of the three for historical capital, but the lowest operating cost.
14. Water
Service Providers Before and After Annexation
Water is currently provided to the West Hill area by the Skyway-Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District and Water District 125.  In the event of annexation, there are two ways water could be provided: (1) the annexing city (Renton or Seattle) could use its own utility department, adding district personnel and facilities as provided by law, or (2) the annexing city could contract with the district(s) to continue to provide service in the West Hill area.
Indicators of Level of Service and Costs
Information Item	Skyway District	Bryn Mawr District	Water District #125	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Average Water Pressure (PSI) per Equivalent Residential Unit • Can be range of pressure per square inch	40-150	52-140	30 – 120	40-110	20-140	
B.	Average Monthly Cost of Water per Equivalent Residential Unit • Average monthly bill	$  33.10	$  24.46	$  23.00 winter;
$  26.50 summer	$  28.54	$ 15.74	
C.	Operating Cost per Equivalent Residential Unit • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by ERUs	$ 206.99	$ 222.23	$ 183.00	$ 155.07	$ 74.60	
D.	Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (6 years) • 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population)	$ 152.46	$  15.08	$  30.00	$  56.00	$ 73.10	
E.	Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per Capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population)	$  55.66	$  19.21	$  25.00	$  55.50	$ 41.40	

A. Average Water Pressure (PSI) per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU):  An “Equivalent Residential Unit” (ERU) is a measuring tool used in water sewer utilities.  It is a unit of measure, much like inches, gallons, acres, etc., but it measures an “average household” (i.e., it is equivalent to the amount of water used by one typical single family house).  All other water system customers are measured by the number of ERUs they equal (i.e., a business that is 7 ERUs uses water equal to 7 typical houses).  The significant variance in water pressure pounds per square inch (PSI) ranges reflect differences in the (1) types of water users (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), and (2) geographic location of water users (e.g., elevation, distance from supply, etc.).
B. Average Monthly Cost of Water per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU):  This indicator shows the average amount that is charged each month for water service for one ERU.
C. Operating Cost per Equivalent Residential Unit:  Total operating (non-capital) costs for water were divided by the total number of ERUs in order to calculate the cost per ERU.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Skyway and Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer Districts, Renton, Seattle, and Water District 125).  This number differs from indicator B, above, in that this is an annual cost, and it excludes any capital costs.
D. and E. Planned and Historical Capital Expenditure per Capita:  For planned capital improvements, we divided the 6-year total cost of the capital improvement program by 6 years to calculate an annual average.  The annual average was then divided by the population to determine the cost per capita per year.  We performed a similar analysis of 5-year historical data.  This procedure was used for each entity that reported data (Skyway and Bryn Mawr Water and Sewer District, Renton, Seattle, and Water District 125).  Capital costs were calculated per capita, rather than per ERU.
Summary of Water Services
Seattle has the lowest average monthly cost and the lowest operating cost per ERU.  Seattle’s historical capital expenditures has been in the mid-range of the 5 agencies reporting, but its planned capital investment is second only to the Skyway District.
15. Property Taxes
Taxing Agencies Before and After Annexation
A. City Property Taxes:  City property taxes are levied only on property that is inside the boundary of the City.  Renton properties pay the Renton tax rate, Seattle properties pay the Seattle tax rate, and properties in unincorporated King County do not pay a city property tax.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton or Seattle, it will pay City property taxes to the City to which it annexes.
B. Consolidated Property Taxes:  Consolidated property taxes are paid by all properties in King County, regardless of whether the property is in a City or in unincorporated King County.  Annexation will not affect payment of Consolidated property taxes.
C. County Road Property Taxes:  The County Road property tax is paid only by properties in unincorporated King County, but properties inside cities, such as Renton or Seattle, do not pay this tax.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton or Seattle, it will no longer pay County Road property taxes.
D. School District Property Taxes:  School district property taxes are paid by all properties within the boundaries of the school district, regardless of whether the property is within a city or the unincorporated area.  The properties in the West Hill area that are in the Renton School District will not change school districts as a result of annexation.
E. Fire District Property Taxes:  Fire district property taxes are paid by all properties within the boundaries of Fire District 20.  In the event of annexation, properties in the West Hill area would not pay property taxes to the Fire District because city governments are not allowed to levy fire district taxes.
F. Library District Property Taxes:  The library district property tax is paid by all properties in the King County Library district, but properties inside cities that have their own libraries, such as Renton or Seattle, do not pay this tax.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton or Seattle, it will no longer pay King County Library district property taxes.
G. EMS Property Taxes:  EMS property taxes are paid by all properties in King County, regardless of whether the property is in a City or in unincorporated King County.  Annexation will not affect payment of EMS property taxes.
H. Hospital District Property Taxes:  Hospital district property taxes are paid by all properties within the boundaries of a hospital district.  In the event of annexation to Renton, properties in the West Hill area would continue to pay property taxes to the hospital district.  If annexation occurs with Seattle, there will be no more payment of hospital district taxes.
Property Tax Rates
Information Item	West Hill (King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	City Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	not applicable	$  3.74707	$ 3.62811	
B.	Consolidated Levy Rate (State School, County, Port) • per $1,000 taxable value	5.37155	5.37155	5.37155	
C.	County Road Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	1.73918	not applicable	not applicable	
D.	School District Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	3.78290 (Renton)	3.78290 (Renton)	3.78290 (Renton)	
E.	Fire District Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	1.44676 (District 20)	not applicable	not applicable	
F.	Library District Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	0.59120	not applicable	not applicable	
G.	EMS Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	0.29000	0.29000	0.29000	
H.	Hospital District Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	0..15354	0..15354	not applicable	
I.	Total Levy Rate • per $1,000 taxable value	13.37513	13.34506	13.07256	

Property tax levy rates are expressed as dollars and cents of taxes per $1,000 of taxable value.  The amount of property taxes due by a property owner are calculated by dividing the property’s taxable value by 1,000, then multiplying the result times the levy rate.  For example, a home in Renton with a taxable value of $175,000 would have its total tax calculated as follows: $175,000 ÷ 1,000 = 175 x $13.34506 = $2,335.39.
Property tax levy rates vary from property to property according to the boundaries of many taxing agencies.  All properties that are served by exactly the same taxing agencies are assigned the same “tax code.”  A property across the street may have all the same taxes except one, in which case it is assigned to a different “tax code” along with only those properties that share exactly the same taxing agencies.  There are many “tax codes” in West Hill, and in the cities of Renton and Seattle.  In order to obtain “typical” tax rates for this study, as presented in the table above, we selected tax codes that applied to the greatest number of parcels.  For West Hill, we used tax code 4305, in Renton we used tax code 2124, and for Seattle we used tax code 0030.
A. City Levy Rate:  City property tax levies are used for any department, program, or service of the City that levys the tax.  State law limits the levy rate set by City government to $3.60, but the voters in a city can approve extra taxes at an election.
B. Consolidated Levy Rate:  The “consolidated” property tax levies are actually the combined total of several separate property taxes.  The following are the individual property taxes that make up the 1999 consolidated levy:
Tax	Levy Rate	
State School Fund	3.35872	
County Current Expense	1.21027	
County River Improvement	.01448	
Inter-County River	.00034	
Veteran’s Aid	.01125	
Mental Health	.02499	
Councilmanic Bond Redemption	.12927	
Lid Lift AFIS	.06647	
Conservation Futures	.06250	
Bond Fund Unlimited	.25428	
Port General Fund	.08659	
Port Bond Fund	.15239	
Total Consolidated Levy	5.37155	

C. County Road Levy Rate:  The County Road property tax levies are used by King County to pay for part of the cost of building and maintaining roads in unincorporated King County.
D. School District Levy Rate:  The Renton School District property tax levy is the total of a special levy of $1.87903 used for a portion of the operating costs of the school district, and a bond fund levy of $1.90387 used to pay off bonds that were sold to build new schools and renovate existing schools.
E. Fire District Levy Rate:  Fire District 20’s property tax levy pays for virtually all of the costs of the fire district, including payroll, supplies, services, and capital items.
F. Library District Levy Rate:  The King County Library System’s district property tax consists of a 50¢ levy that pays for most of the costs of the library system, including payroll, supplies, services, and the library’s collection of books and other materials, plus a levy of $0.09120 for paying off a bond issue used to build libraries.
G. EMS Levy Rate:  EMS property tax levies are used for the operating costs of King County Medic One that provides advanced life support emergency response countywide.
H. Hospital District Levy Rate:  The hospital district property tax levy consists of a levy of $0.10206 for current expenses, and a levy of $0.05148 for paying off a bond issue used for capital improvements.

16. Other Taxes and Fees
Taxing Agencies Before and After Annexation
A. Business & Occupation Local Taxes:  Cities have the authority to charge Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes, but counties do not.  Seattle has a B&O tax, Renton does not.  If the West Hill area annexes to Seattle, local businesses will pay Seattle’s B& O tax.  If West Hill annexes to Renton, local businesses will not have a B&O tax.
B. Business License:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge business license fees.  King County, Renton and Seattle all have business license fees.  Only the amounts would change as a result of annexation.
C. Gambling Tax:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge gambling taxes.  Only the amounts would change as a result of annexation.
D. Utility Tax:  Cities have the authority to charge utility taxes, but counties do not.  Renton and Seattle have utility taxes, although rates differ between the two cities.  City utility taxes do apply on utility services in West Hill that are provided by either Seattle or Renton.  For example, utility taxes on electricity are paid in West Hill where the City of Seattle provides electric service.  If the West Hill area annexes to Seattle or Renton, each city will likely impose utility taxes on all utility services.
E. Franchise Fee:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge franchise fees.  Only the amounts would change as a result of annexation.
F. Development Fees:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge fees for reviewing and processing applications for development.  Only the amounts would change as a result of annexation.
G. Transportation Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge transportation mitigation or impact fees.  King County and Renton have such fees, Seattle does not.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton, new development will pay Renton’s road impact fee rate instead of King County’s rate.  If West Hill annexes to Seattle, new development will not pay a road impact fee (but may be required to mitigate specific adverse impacts).
H. Park Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Cities and counties have the authority to charge park mitigation or impact fees.  Renton has such fees, Seattle and King County do not.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton, new development will pay Renton’s park impact fee rate.  If West Hill annexes to Seattle, new development will not pay a park impact fee (but may be required to mitigate specific adverse impacts).
I. Fire Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Cities have the authority to charge park mitigation or impact fees, fire districts do not.  Renton has such fees, Seattle and Fire District 20 do not.  If the West Hill area annexes to Renton, new development will pay Renton’s fire impact fee rate.  If West Hill annexes to Seattle, new development will not pay a fire impact fee.
J. Tax Rate on Taxable Retail Sales:  Sales taxes are charged in cities and counties.  The rates in Renton and Seattle are the same as in King County, therefore there would be no change as a result of annexation.
Rates of Other Taxes and Fees
Information Item	West Hill (King County)	Renton	Seattle	
A.	Business and Occupation Local Tax Rates • percent of gross revenue	not authorized by law	Renton has chosen not to charge this tax	0.215% - 0.415%	
B.	Business License Rates • cost per establishment	40-750	55/employee	75	
C.	Gambling Tax Rates • percent of gross revenue	2-11%	5-10%	0-10%	
D.	Utility Tax Rates • percent of gross revenue	not authorized by law	6%	6-10%	
E.	Franchise Fee Rates: Cable TV	5%	5%	2%	
F.	Development Fees – Permit, Inspection, Review (2,500 sq. ft. home with 500 sq. ft. garage)	3,007	1,960	not reported	
G.	Transportation Mitigation or Impact Fees • per single family house	40-119	750	“n/a” reported by Seattle	
H.	Park Mitigation or Impact Fees • per single family house	not reported	531	“n/a” reported by Seattle	
I.	Fire Mitigation or Impact Fees • per single family house	not authorized by law	488	“n/a” reported by Seattle	
J.	Tax Rate on Taxable Retail Sales	8.6%	8.6%	8.6%	

A. Business & Occupation Local Taxes:  Business and occupation (B&O) taxes are calculated on the gross income of the business or occupation.  Local B&O taxes are separate from and different than the B&O tax collected by the State of Washington.  The local B&O tax rate cannot exceed 0.2% unless higher rates are specifically approved by the voters.  Seattle voters approved the city’s rates of 0.215% to 0.415%, depending on the type of business.  As a city, Renton has the option of charging a B&O tax, but it has not chosen to impose that tax.
B. Business License:  Cities and counties have different polices regarding business license fees.  King County only charges fees to business that it has enforcement authority, and the rates vary by types of business to reflect the extent of enforcement.  Renton charges a business license rate based on the number of employees ($55 per employee), and does not charge a B&O tax.  Seattle charges a flat fee of $75 to all business, and also charges a B&O tax.
C. Gambling Tax:  Gambling taxes are set by local governments, but tax rates cannot exceed limits in state law.  Taxes are based on gross receipts, or net receipts (i.e., gross receipts less prizes).  The following are the specific rates charged by King County, Renton and Seattle.
Tax	King County	Renton	Seattle	
Amusement Games (net)	2%	2%	2%	
Punch Boards and Pull Tabs – for profit (gross)	5%	5%	5%	
Punch Boards and Pull Tabs – non profit (net)	10%	10%	5%	
Bingo (net)	10%	10%	10%	
Raffles (net)	10%	no tax	10%	
Card Games (gross)	11%	10%	Not allowed	

D. Utility Tax:  Utility taxes are set by cities (counties cannot charge utility taxes), but tax rates cannot exceed limits in state law.  The following are the specific rates charged by Renton and Seattle.
Tax	Renton	Seattle	
Natural Gas	6%	6%	
Electricity	6%	6%	
Telephone	6%	6%	
Cellular Phones	6%	6%	
Pay Phones	no tax	6%	
Pagers	no tax	6%	
Cable TV	6%	10%	
Garbage	no tax	10%	
Water	no tax	10%	
Sewer	no tax	10%	
Storm Drain	no tax	10%	

E. Franchise Fee:  Franchise fees are set by local governments.  The fees reported in this study are based on a percent of gross receipts.
F. Development Fees:  Development fees are set by local governments.
G. Transportation Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Mitigation fees and impact fees are set by local governments in compliance with state law.  Mitigation fees follow the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and impact fees follow the Growth Management Act (GMA).  There are strict rules about these fees.  They are one-time payments by new development, and they cannot be charged for deficiencies that existed before the development occurred.  The rates in the table above are for single family houses, but King County and Renton also charge the fees to other types of development.  King County’s fees range reflects the fact that it charges different fees in different “Mitigation Payment System” zones.
H. Park Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Park mitigation or impact fees are subject to the same laws as transportation fees (above). 
I. Fire Mitigation or Impact Fees:  Fire mitigation or impact fees are subject to the same laws as transportation fees (above).  In addition, fire districts cannot charge such fees.
J. Tax Rate on Taxable Retail Sales:  The sales tax rate consists of 6.5% for the State, and a series of local option sales taxes.  Renton, Seattle and King County all have 2.1% of local option taxes: 1% for the local government, 0.1% for criminal justice, 0.6% for transit, and 0.4% for the RTA.
Limitations on Use of the Annexation Analysis
There are a number of topics that are beyond the scope of this study.
•	This study does not evaluate the desirability or feasibility of annexation from the viewpoint of the cities of Renton and Seattle.
Such a study would consider whether or not the cities should annex the West Hill area.  In some instances, an area may cost more to serve than the revenue it would produce if it were annexed into a particular city.  Conversely, some annexations are advantageous to cities because they produce more money than the cost of providing public facilities and services.  This study does not determine whether either of these scenarios is true for either city (Renton or Seattle) nor does it provide any analysis of the net benefit or cost to either city.
•	This study does not calculate the cost or time required to bring annexed areas up to the level of service currently provided by annexing cities.
This study assumes that the annexing city will provide the annexed area with levels of service comparable to those provided to the residents and businesses in the existing city limits.  In general, the cost and time required to equalize levels of service will vary depending on many factors, including (1) the difference between the city's level of service and that of the unincorporated area, (2) the revenue generated by the unincorporated area, (3) the city's reserves, and (4) the ability of the unincorporated area to obtain a "seat" on the city council.  An analysis of these, and other relevant variables is beyond the scope of this study.  Furthermore, it may not be feasible for a city to provide its level of service for annexed areas.  This could occur if a city is experiencing growth within its pre-annexation boundaries that exceeds its ability to sustain its level of service, or if the annexed area is significantly deficient in infrastructure and does not have the financial base to underwrite a significant portion of the cost of eliminating the deficiency.
In addition, it is important that readers remember that these comparisons represent a snapshot in time.  Service levels, costs, and levels of taxation inevitably change over time.  As a given jurisdiction improves processes, the quality of service delivery might improve and costs might fall.  In addition, when looking at the County as a service provider, it is worth remembering that, as the County moves away from providing local services to urban areas which are not served under a contract with a municipality, both the infrastructure and the revenues supporting current service levels in areas like West Hill will likely diminish over time.
•	This study includes a limited analysis of the causes of variations in levels of service and costs of service among the local governments.
This study makes direct comparisons between the County and each City, and reports the differences in each comparison.  There are many potential explanations for such differences.  A partial list includes (1) anomalies occurring in the year for which data was reported (1998), (2) policies of particular governments to devote greater resources than other governments for particular services or facilities, (3) differences in tax base and other resources, (4) different management style, (5) different administrative costs, (6) relative success in obtaining intergovernmental revenue, and (7) relative acceptance of or resistance to taxes, fees, and debt.
An examination of the causes of variance would consist of (a) thorough compilation of anecdotal explanations, and/or (b) a multi-variate statistical analysis.  Such research is beyond the scope of this study.