Disclaimer
This document has been edited to improve readability and allow availability on King County's web site. The Petrovitsky Corridor Governance Options Report is also available in hard copy from the Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 4th floor of the King County Courthouse.

Portions of the Petrovitsky Corridor Governance Options Report are provided in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf). In order to view these documents you must have Acrobat Reader software installed on your computer. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on you computer you can obtain the installation file and instructions from
the Adobe web site.

Table of Contents

>> Executive Summary:
>> Introduction and Report Organization:
>> General Characteristics of the Study Area:
>> Public Survey:
>> Preserving the Status Quo:
>> Analysis of Incorporation Alternative:
>> Analysis of Annexation:
>> Appendix A:  Maps
>> Appendix B:  Details of Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility on Incorporation
>> Appendix C:  Description of Governance Options
>> Appendix D:  King County Policies and Programs Related to
                         Annexation and Incorporation
>> Appendix E:  City of Renton Annexation Policies
>> Appendix F:  Petrovitsky Resident's Request for Governance Options Study
>> Appendix G:  Details of Services Provided and Estimated Expenditures
>> Appendix H:  Public Survey Form

Executive Summary:

The statutes of the Washington State Growth Management Act encourage all unincorporated areas within the Washington State's identified urban areas to pursue incorporated status either through annexation or incorporation. State law (RCW 36.70A.110) provides the underlying rationale for this policy: "In general, cities are the local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services."

In response to the direction of the Growth Management Act (GMA), in the early 1990s King County and the suburban cities worked together to develop a framework of policies, called the Countywide Planning Policies, to guide jurisdictions as they planned for the future. Among other things, the Countywide Planning Policies call for the annexation or incorporation of all unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundary within a 20-year timeframe (1992 - 2012).

The Countywide Planning Policies anticipate that, as this 20-year transition proceeds, the role of county government will evolve into one of providing regional services on a countywide basis and providing local services only to rural areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary . King County will, however, do its best to provide local services to unincorporated urban areas during this transition.

Given the clear direction of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies, King County government has tried to facilitate the governance transition of unincorporated urban areas. This report represents the County's effort to assist the citizen's of the Petrovitsky Corridor in determining which governance option is best suited to the needs of the community. The King County Council allocated funding in the 1999 budget in order to make this study possible.

>> Sections within the Executive Summary:

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

>> View Entire Executive Summary:

Word 7.doc (79 KB)
Rich Text File.rtf (105 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Introduction and Report Organization:

Under the Growth Management Act, three governance options are available to residents of urban unincorporated King County:

1. Preserve the status quo - remaining part of unincorporated King County as long as possible.
   
2. Incorporate as a new city.
   
3. Annex to the City of Renton.

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

General Characteristics of the Study Area:

The Petrovitsky Corridor is an urban unincorporated area located Southeast of Renton approximately bounded on the North by SR 169 and the City of Renton, on the West by Renton and Kent, on the South by SE 208th Street, and on the East by the Urban Growth Boundary. For purposes of this study, the area we refer to as the Petrovitsky Corridor (or Petrovitsky) includes, among others, the neighborhoods of Fairwood, Cascade, Benson Hill, Shady Lake, Spring Glen, and Lake Desire. The majority of the area's development took place in the 1970s and 1980s, with continued but slowing growth in the 1990s. The study area is roughly 17 square miles in size, extending approximately 5.5 miles from its easternmost boundary to its westernmost, and 3.5 miles from its northernmost to its southernmost edge. Boundaries of the study area generally correspond with the boundaries of the City of Renton's potential annexation area (excluding an area north of State Route 169, which is included in Renton's PAA but excluded from the study).

>> Sections within:

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

>> View Chapter: General Characteristics of the Study Area

Word 7.doc (55 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (82 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Public Survey:

To assess the current attitudes of Petrovitsky Corridor residents regarding the future governance of their area and the issues that are most important to them where local government plays a role, we conducted a survey of the area's registered voters. The survey, developed with the help of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP), asked registered voters their current preference among three possible governance options, how satisfied they were with current services, and how they thought levels of service might change under incorporation or annexation.

>> Sections within:

Public Survey
I. How we Designed, Conducted and Analyzed the Survey
II. Results
III. Conclusions

>> View Chapter: Public Survey

Word 7.doc (245 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (944 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Preserving the Status Quo:

When asked what form of governance residents preferred, a full 62 percent of respondents to the opinion survey said that they preferred the status quo. As it was worded in the survey, the respondents indicated that "the best choice for the future" was to "stay as it is - part of unincorporated King County." Of the remainder, 22 percent favored annexation, and 12 percent favored incorporation. While these responses shed light on current attitudes, they also raise some important questions. First among these questions may be: "Is the status quo a viable, long-term option?"

>> Sections within:

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

>> View Chapter: Preserving the Status Quo

Word 7.doc (55 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (82 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Analysis of Incorporation Alternative:

The majority of residents who responded to our public survey indicated that incorporation was the least attractive of the available alternatives. If continuation of the status quo remains an option, then 62 percent of respondents preferred that alternative. If remaining with the status quo is not an option, then 48 percent of respondents indicated a preference for annexing to another city versus 34 percent for incorporation.

>> Sections within:

Analysis of Incorporation Alternative
I. Does Incorporation of Petrovitsky Appear Financially Feasible?
II. Is There Any Way an Incorporated Petrovitsky Corridor Could Support Itself?
III.What Changes Could Make Incorporation More Feasible in the Future?
IV. What are the Areas of Uncertainty in our Analysis, and What Range of
     Potential Outcomes Does That Uncertainty Suggest?
V. How is Feasibility Affected by Changes in Assumed Population?
VI. Would Inclusion of an Area to the South Influence Feasibility?
VII. Will Costs Associated with Implementation of the Endagered Species Act
      Affect Feasibility?
VIII. Key Assumptions
IX. What are the Key Factors Affecting Feasibility?
X. Overview of Projected Revenues and Expenses?

>> View Chapter: Analysis of Incorporation Alternative

Word 7.doc (213 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (520 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Analysis of Annexation:

When our surveyors asked the question "If you had to choose today, which do you think is the best choice for the future of the Fairwood/Petrovitsky area?" 22 percent of respondents indicated that they would prefer annexation to Renton. When asked what they would prefer if "staying as it is" were not an option, 48 percent of those surveyed indicated a preference for annexing to Renton compared to 34 percent who preferred incorporation.

>> Sections within:

Analysis of Annexation
I. What This Analysis Is About
II. Methodology
III. Key Assumptions
IV. Levels of Service and Expenditure Per Capita
V. Limitations on Use of the Annexation Analysis

>> View Chapter: Analysis of Annexation

Word 7.doc (244 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (344 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix A:  Maps

>> Within Appendix A:

I. Land Use Map
II. Map of Water and Sewer District Boundaries
III. Map of Fire District Boundaries
IV. Map of School District Boundaries
V. Map of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations: Petrovitsky Study Area
VI. Discussion of City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the Study Area

>> View Maps

· Land Use Map .pdf file (425 KB)
· Map of Water and Sewer District Boundaries .pdf file (185 KB)
· Map of Fire District Boundaries .pdf file (167 KB)
· Map of School District Boundaries .pdf file (181 KB)
· Map of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations: Petrovitsky Study Area .pdf file (265 KB)

>> View Discussion: of City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
                                 in the Study Area

Word 7.doc (55 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (81 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Regional Policy and Planning Home

Appendix B:  Details of Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility of Incorporation

>> Sections within Appendix B:

Details of Fiscal Analysis of the Feasibility of Incorporation
I. Low Scenario
II. High Scenario

>> View Appendix B:

Word 7.doc (124 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (312 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix C:  Description of Governance Options

>> Sections within Appendix C:

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

>> View Appendix C:

Word 7.doc (74 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (102 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

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

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

>> Sections within Appendix D:

County Policies and Programs Related to Annexation and Incorporation
I. The Annexation and Incorporation Process
II. Adopted Annexation and Incorporation Policies

>> View Appendix D:

Word 7.doc (59 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (87 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix E:  City of Renton Annexation Policies

Source: Renton Comprehensive Plan
See the City of Renton, Department of Economic Development Neighborhoods and Planning for plan.

>> Sections within Appendix E:

City of Renton Annexation Policies
I. Annexation Summary
II. Potential Annexation Areas
III. Review Criteria for Annexation
IV. Boundaries
V. Environmental Quality and Protection
VI. Annexation and Intergovernmental Relations
VII. City Administration of Annexations

>> View Appendix E:

Word 7.doc (73 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (99 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix F:   Petrovitsky Resident's Request for                         Governance Options Study

>> View Appendix F:

Word 7.doc (24 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (13 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix G:  Details of Services Provided and Estimated                         Expenditures

>> Sections within Appendix G:

Details of Services Provided and Estimated Expenditures
I. Human Services
II. Parks
III. Public Health
IV. Roads
V. Surface Water Management

>> View Appendix G:

Word 7.doc (99 KB)
Rich Text Format.rtf (125 KB)

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

Appendix H:  Public Survey Form

(Conducted by Telephone)

>> View the Public Survey Form:

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

Return to:  Table of Contents | Office of Budget Home

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