SUMMARY OF THE BALLOT MEASURE:

The City of Kent is proposing to annex the unincorporated neighborhood of Panther Lake to the city.  The city is approximately 29 square miles with about 88,000 residents.  The Panther Lake area has about 24,000 residents and is approximately five square miles, bounded by the City of Renton on the north, Big Soos Creek on the east, and contiguous with Kent’s existing city limits on the annexation area’s south and west boundaries.  It has a single family residential character. 

The Panther Lake area lies within Kent’s potential annexation area.  The annexation proposal is intended to accomplish the goals of the State’s Growth Management Act and King County’s Urban Annexation Initiative to provide urban service levels within the Urban Growth Area.  The measure asks residents in the annexation area if they want to annex into the City of Kent.  Passage requires a majority vote.  The Boundary Review Board has approved the City’s proposal.

The City’s most recent financial feasibility analysis found that the annexing area would generate revenues about $600,000 less than expenditures.  However, including the approximately $4.9 million per year in state sales tax credit (for 10 years) that newly annexing cities are entitled to, the city will be able to cover the costs of serving the annexing area.  

Overall, property owners in the annexing area would pay less in property taxes and in total taxes than they currently pay as an unincorporated area in King County.  While owners would pay a utility tax of $89 per year, the total tax impact is about $132 less per household per year within the city on a typical $250,000 home.

The school, library and fire and emergency medical service districts, Soos Creek Water and Sewer district, and countywide levies for human services, the port and parks would not be affected by the annexation.  King County Metro services would also not be impacted.  Most services in the annexation area, including water, garbage and sewer services, would not change.  

City zoning would establish the same densities as currently allowed under the County, but some planned residential land use intensities would likely be less than the County’s.  Residents in the annexing area would experience some changes in services and regulations.  A new city police patrol district would be established for Panther Lake.  City ordinances prohibiting fireworks and requiring permits for fire sprinkler installation would be in effect.  Ownership and maintenance of three King County neighborhood parks would be transferred to the City.  The County would retain ownership and maintenance responsibility for the Soos Creek Regional Trail. 

ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE

The proponents of the measure made the following arguments in support of the measure:

•    Panther Lake has been part of Kent for decades. The demographics, home values, incomes and diversity are very similar to the existing population in the city.  Annexation will formally recognize neighbors who are already a part of the business and social community of Kent.
•    The annexation area will receive better services without higher taxes.
•    Police coverage and response times will increase.  Kent will add a fourth patrol district in the annexing area with over 20 new positions, including a neighborhood response team with patrol officers, K-9 unit, traffic control and detectives. 
•    All urban services will be available.  Building permit processes will be handled locally.
•    The annexing area will benefit from the city’s neighborhood program which promotes beautification of streetscapes and gateways, enhances neighborhood identity, and increases resident involvement in neighborhood issues.
•    Three county parks will be transferred to the City as part of the annexation.  These parks would otherwise close as a result of cutbacks in all County services due to current fiscal deficits. 
•    The City of Kent is committed to providing human services to those in need.
•    Taxes will be somewhat lower for most families. Property tax will decrease by $132 per year on a $250,000 property.
•    It will be much easier to go to downtown Kent if citizens feel they are not being adequately served or want a law changed.
•    Government officials will be more accessible and responsive--seven at-large city council members and an at-large mayor, rather than just one county council member.
•    Kent will be the fifth largest city in the state after annexation and will be better able to influence regional affairs.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURE

Opponents of the measure made the following arguments:

•    Residents of the annexing area will pay more in taxes and will have to pay all of the past bonds issued by the city. 
•    Residents will have to pay the city’s business and utility taxes.  Utility taxes are 6% on electric, gas and telephone service and 7.8% on garbage collection.
•    Residents will lose the fire station they already paid for.
•    Many Kent regulations will be more restrictive that King County’s.  Kent requires all existing buildings over 7,000 square feet to have fire sprinklers installed.  Up to 400 existing apartment buildings will need to be upgraded, costing thousands per building.  No fireworks are allowed within the city.
•    Residents will be forced to use the city’s curbside garbage pickup.
•    The Kent government does not reflect the diversity of the community.  Kent has no persons of color in elected positions and only one department head who is a person of color.

RECOMMENDATION and RATIONALE

The Municipal League of King County supports the annexation of the Panther Lake neighborhood to the City of Kent. 

Significant islands of population remain unincorporated in the urban areas of King County, wedged between growing regional cities.  The proposed Panther Lake annexation is such an area.  It has long been costly and inefficient for King County to continue to serve and its residents increasingly expect urban levels of service.  This and similar largely residential areas do not generate sufficient tax revenues to pay for needed services and have posed a dilemma for the County and cities.  The state legislature authorized a transitional sales tax credit to annexing cities for 10 years to help bridge the financial gap.  In response, cities have been stepping up to meet the state and regional growth management goals by proposing to annex the remaining unincorporated pockets in the urban growth area.

Not all citizens are happy with this transition.  Some residents of the annexation area prefer the old lifestyle that involved less government and less regulation.  Nevertheless, the encroaching urban growth impacts and service needs require management by municipal government.  The Municipal League supports the goals of the Growth Management Act and believes that completing the annexation and incorporation of the remaining areas is appropriate.  This annexation is the right thing to do, for the city, for the annexing area, and for the entire region.