SNOHOMISH — Paying less taxes is the best thing about living outside the city, Bob Keithley said.
Keithley, who has lived on 64th Street SE north of the city for 22 years, now pays about $20 a month for water.
But that and other costs could go up, he said, if the city annexes 175 acres north of the town, including his one-acre property.
Keithley was among about 20 people who came to the City Council meeting Tuesday night to voice opinions about the annexation east of Highway 9 known as the Sier annexation. The land is north of the city and stretches from Blackmans Lake to near U.S. 2.
Keithley said he opposes the annexation because it could substantially increase his cost of living. "I can’t see one advantage for us being in the city," he said.
Some area residents expressed concerns about unknowns in the annexation proposal. For example, how long would it take before they get hooked up to city water and sewer systems?
After the public hearing, the council decided 6-1 to delay its vote on the issue for about a month to answer the questions area residents have.
"I think the council did a very fine job listening to people," said Rod Ashley, pastor of Snohomish First Assembly Church.
Ashley came to the meeting to support the annexation because the church is expected to expand and needs city utilities.
Councilman Chris Lundvall voted against the move, saying the annexation should be rejected because some people don’t want to be part of the city.
The annexation, based on property owners’ signatures representing more than 60 percent of the assessed value in the area, had been suspended for more than two years.
In March 2002, the council was about to vote on the deal. But the issue came to a halt when the state Supreme Court struck down the petition method of annexations on March 14, 2002.
The deal was resurrected after the high court reversed its decision in late January.
The council held a public hearing in late 2001 on the annexation. It had another one Tuesday, even though it wasn’t required.
Not all residents had their say about the annexation process, which some larger property owners have pushed, Keithley said before the meeting. That’s not fair to small property owners, he added.
The high court shouldn’t have reversed its decision on the ban, he added.
"That’s wrong," Keithley said. "It should be based on residents. One property owner, one vote."
Reporter Yoshiaki Nohara: 425-339-3029 or
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
