In moving forward with the annexation of its urban growth areas both in King and Snohomish counties, Bothell city staff has recommended local officials use a newly authorized process that could allow the annexations to take place without a public vote.
After an hour-plus discussion of annexation issues at a Feb. 9 council meeting, Mayor Mark Lamb said the so-called interlocal agreement annexation method, recently approved by the state legislature, is definitely under discussion.
Though he said nothing will be written in stone, Lamb expects that within the next few weeks, City Council will come up with a general direction in which it wants to proceed.
But no matter what annexation method council at least initially lights upon, Lamb said the most important move in relation to growing the city is for local officials to reach out to the fire districts now serving the annexation areas, as well as officials in both counties.
“That’s priority No. 1,” he said.
Objections coming from Snohomish County fire districts 1 and 7 helped kill Bothell’s annexation plans last year. Another issue that torpedoed any progress was a squabble between King and Snohomish counties over who would collect solid waste in the large Snohomish County portion of Bothell’s assigned urban growth area.
King County has claimed it has an agreement with the city to collect all waste coming from Bothell, no matter from what county that waste originates.
Basically, there are three ways for a city to annex its growth areas.
The first is to respond to petitions filed by a certain percentage of those who live or own property in the annexation area. The second is a public vote of the persons in the annexation area, which also would be the end result of the petition process.
The last method allows cities to complete annexations by striking interlocal agreements with other taxing districts affected by the annexation. Lamb said Bothell’s administrative staff favors that approach because it streamlines the overall process.
“This is a much more efficient way of moving forward with an annexation,” he added.
Though he said he may or may not support the process personally, Lamb described the interlocal method as replacing a public vote with plenty of public outreach. Though Lamb didn’t say so, perhaps more importantly to Bothell officials, it also takes the boundary review boards (BRBs) of both counties out of the equation.
Responding to the concerns of local fire districts, it was the Snohomish County BRB that formally squashed the annexation process for Bothell last year. Lamb said local staff put a lot of time and effort — not to mention the city having spent a considerable amount of money — promoting annexation plans in 2009, only to have those plans nixed at seemingly the last minute by the Snohomish BRB.
According to information coming from the city, Bothell’s staff recommends a process that would run through the end of 2010 and possibly into 2011.
Under the proposal, the city would work toward agreements with the fire districts, the counties and whatever other parties come to the table, while also holding open houses and public hearings.
Once those activities were completed, the council would have the opportunity to move forward with an annexation by whatever process it chose or put the whole effort on hold.
City information put the price tag for annexation work at $150,000.
Resident Gene Grieve lives in the Snohomish County portion of Bothell’s urban growth area and has been a strong proponent for annexation. While he didn’t flat out object to the interlocal method of annexation, he is concerned that process would impose city taxes on persons who never had a direct voice regarding those taxes.
On another front, Grieve said that while Bothell’s municipal debt is low, he’s not sure persons in the annexation areas should help pay for debt accumulated prior to their joining the city. Grieve noted many in the Snohomish growth area already have contributed to Bothell’s coffers for many years by way of retail taxes paid at Canyon Park’s many businesses.
