By Mary Kay Voss
The Wal-Mart question is not whether it makes sense for them to locate so close to their other store. That choice is theirs, not ours.
It is not whether Wal-Mart, or Home Depot, or any other store should be developed on the ‘buffalo farm.’ They own the land, which is zoned commercial, and it is in Snohomish County. Permitting has begun.
It is not a question of image, even if some say it’s not the image we are trying to convey with Town Center.
The question before the Mill Creek City Council is whether that land should be annexed.
It is an issue of money. If we annex prior to construction, we get the sales tax on the building costs, and the fees. Over a few years, that’s a couple million in our coffers, rather than the county’s.
There are big dollars involved. They project $60 million in sales per year. That equates to $480,000 sales tax revenue for the city. My concern? Those are projections. We won’t know the accuracy until the store is operating. (Lowe’s sales tax revenue is short of their projections). Secondarily, Home Depot will probably drain some of the Lowe’s sales and reduce the revenue from them. Wouldn’t we prefer to have both inside the city?
The other side is the concern that if we annex one portion east of 35th Avenue SE, then we may have to annex all of the our East Urban Growth Area (EUGA). The rest is nearly all residential. What’s the problem? Residential doesn’t pay enough property taxes to maintain the roads, police, and services they use. We forecast a bigger city hall, public works yard, maybe a new police station. It takes retail and commercial to pay the bills.
My review of the numbers, based on this larger than originally stated projected income, shows Area A might stay positive cash flow, but it will probably not be enough to carry the rest of the EUGA. If we annex Area A, which includes a wetland, and some residential, and we never annex the homes south of there, we would be fine financially. The area would generate the sales and property taxes to pay for all the services required. However, if we annex the Area A and some day have to annex other areas, then the retail might not provide enough revenue to support the services required by these residential areas.
Four members favor annexing for the money. (Terry Ryan, Donna Michelson, John Hudgins and Mark Bond) and letting future Councils deal with future annexations.
Others are concerned that with the growth management act and the county wanting to quit providing services, we may be forced to annex. How would we pay for that given the current environment of no tax increases and tax roll back initiatives?
I am not for growing just for the sake of growing, so do not see the need to cross 35th. In my opinion it won’t be beneficial enough to extend our boundaries, regardless of the specific development, so I stand with Council members Dale Hensley and Jack Start in opposition – not to Wal-Mart, but to annexation.
Mary Kay Voss is a Mill Creek City Council member.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
