SNOHOMISH — Everett Crossman, who lives just north of town, discarded his hope to be part of the city about two years ago. But his hope is being revived.

In March 2002, the City Council was about to approve a 175-acre annexation east of Highway 9. Crossman signed a petition for the annexation along with other property owners in the area, which stretches from Blackmans Lake close to U.S. 2.

Known as the Sier annexation, the effort came to a halt when the state Supreme Court struck down the petition method of annexations on March 14, 2002.

"I was very disappointed," said Crossman, 75, who lives on 64th Street SE. "But someone told me they can reverse themselves, and lo and behold, they did."

The high court reversed its earlier decision in late January this year.

As a result, the City Council will revisit the Sier annexation and decide tonight whether to have a public hearing on the issue before making its final decision. Because the council had a public hearing in 2001, it’s not required to have another hearing.

In 2002, the council would’ve passed the annexation on a close vote, said Mayor Liz Loomis, who was a council member then.

"It was kind of a controversial annexation," Loomis said, adding she would have voted for it.

The area is made up mainly of single-family houses, most of which don’t have sewer systems, Crossman said. Those houses use septic systems, and some are getting old and failing and are polluting Blackmans Lake, he said.

He also said crime in his neighborhood has been increasing.

"What we need here is (the city’s) sewers, water and police protection," Crossman said.

Using the city’s utilities would probably cost him more, but it would also boost real estate values, Crossman said.

"Overall it will cost us more, but to me it’s worth it," Crossman said.

Others see it differently.

Two local churches and a housing developer mainly pushed the annexation in 2002, City Councilman Chris Lundvall said.

Meanwhile, he heard concerns from some property owners about a possible tax increase because of the annexation.

"I was very upset," Lundvall said, because he thought the deal wasn’t fair to owners of smaller properties.

Unless the situation has changed, Lundvall said he would still vote against the annexation.

But since then, the council welcomed some new faces on the board. Lundvall said he is not sure how the council will decide on the annexation.

"We will see what will happen," he said.

Councilwoman Melody Clemans, who took office in January, said the council should have another public hearing because a lot of time has passed since 2002.

"I just think it’s a fair decision, she said.

Reporter Yoshiaki Nohara: 425-339-3029 or ynohara@heraldnet.com.