Annexation’s frustrations

Three moms armed with a lawyer, a few thousand dollars and a couple of 10-inch thick notebooks have so far derailed plans to erect hundreds of new houses in their neighborhood. But, they say, the battle is far from over.

If Snohomish County residents April Tillett, Becky Johnson and Diana Riley had their way, everyone responsible for development and growth management in the Puget Sound region would be sent to their rooms to think about the mess they’ve made of local roadways, schools and neighborhoods.

Their battle with developers and county planners began two years ago when notices were posted about several proposed residential developments in and around their neighborhood in unincorporated Mill Creek, though city leaders are considering a request from Lynnwood to surrender much of the area.

Developers proposed clearing some 70 acres of forest and wetland buffer along North Creek and redeveloping an additional 13 acres to allow construction of 240 new homes.

The Gravenstein moms spent the better part of 18 months researching the Growth Management Act (GMA) and visiting with scientists from various state and federal environmental agencies. They hired a lawyer with assistance from their neighborhood association and coughed up more than $1,500 to appeal county rulings that three of the proposed developments posed no significant danger to the environment.

“We were told every step the way that our efforts were a waste of time,” Tillett said. “The county told us to go away.”

Unfazed, the women kept at it, soliciting letters from neighbors, testifying at county meetings and joining forces with leaders from surrounding cities including Bothell and Mill Creek.

“Imagine how many people like us eventually gave up, because the county told them their efforts were pointless,” Riley said. “I’ll never drive by another land use sign again without wondering what lies are behind it.”

Not keeping pace

From tiresome commutes on crowded streets and highways to infill developments in long-established neighborhoods, “there’s no escape,” Johnson said. “Even our schools are crowded.”

She got so frustrated last year she pulled her children out of the district opting for private school instead.

“It’s not that I don’t support public education, but the state isn’t giving the teachers the support they need and the county is adding more and more homes more and more people into these areas and the schools are absolutely packed,” Johnson said. “Enough is enough.”

Planners and economists say the fallout from accelerated growth and development is evident in every city across the nation. Infrastructure is not keeping pace with the growing population.

Since 1990, in Snohomish County alone, the population rose by some 230,000 people. And it’s projected to jump again by more than 500,000 in the next 30 years, according to the state’s 2040 forecast.

“This all started because the counties and the cities were not required to plan together,” Snohomish County Planning and Development Services director Craig Ladiser said.

“The Growth Management Act was passed by the Legislature in 1990 and it did a couple of key things. It forced us to cooperate and it forced us to plan around our infrastructure: where are all these people going to live and work, and do we have the capacity to accommodate them?”

Irregular standards

The GMA requires cities and counties to look at growth strategically — to assess infrastructure needs against population forecasts and keep current comprehensive plans, detailing how and where growth will occur and what it will look like.

But there’s no mandate in the law forcing cities and counties to follow the same standards.

The cities are responsible for planning and incorporating land within their Municipal Urban Growth Areas (MUGAs), while the counties control development until the land is annexed.

“How can you ask people to submit to a city that does not represent them?” Ladiser asked. “The real issue is that the urban areas are feeling tremendous pressure from growth and the cities want to control their densities.”

Annexation is the one tool cities have to protect the integrity of their borders, but the burden of extending services to thousands of new residents is often cost prohibitive. The Legislature offered cities a carrot in 2006 to help cover the cost of incorporating new residents. Cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties that initiate annexations resulting in a minimum of 10,000 new residents will capture 0.1 percent of the state’s sales tax collections from those cities for 10 years. The offer is set to expire in 2010, but lawmakers expect a proposal from King County to extend the deadline.

Four cities in Snohomish County — Lynnwood, Bothell, Marysville and Mukilteo — are pursuing annexations that qualify for the temporary tax incentive. But even with help from the state, the process of adding new residents and extending services is expensive.

“I don’t think the tax incentive will be enough in the end,” Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick said. “The cities are doing a 2-step dance. You have the state holding out this carrot, but, at the same time, the cities are realizing that 0.1 percent isn’t going to touch their expenses.”

With the deadline fast approaching, cities are already working with the county on strategic plans to transition services, such as fire and law enforcement. In some cases, the Sheriff’s Office and fire districts will contract service out temporarily. But there will come a point that bridge contracts won’t be effective.

The Sheriff’s Office has 298 commissioned deputies serving 318,000 unincorporated residents.

“We still have an obligation to our county residents,” Lovick said. “We could easily find ourselves over extended if every city asks us to fill their gap in law enforcement. It will never be like King County where they’ve stopped investigating property crimes less than $10,000, but we have to be smart in how we approach this.”

County loses money

The county will lose approximately $18.8 million from taxes and other revenue sources if all four annexations are approved by a simple majority of voters in the effected areas.

County leaders have pledged their support to the Sheriff’s Office in the face of falling revenue, but there’s concern that vacant positions will not be filled.

“We’ll have to streamline operations and that’s scary for everyone who works here,” Ladiser said. “The GMA tells us very clearly what our responsibilities are and how we go about managing growth. Unfortunately, it does not tell us how to implement those things fairly or equitably.”

The financial side effects will reach beyond the counties into cities where large-scale annexations aren’t an option.

Mill Creek Mayor Terry Ryan wants the county — not residents — to be accountable for substandard development in the city’s growth area.

“That won’t happen if the county runs out of money,” Ryan said. “They’ve done such a poor job developing the east west corridor of 164th Street that we can’t possibly afford to annex there without major assistance.”

The county declared 164th at ultimate capacity in December, because curbside development barred any chances of expanding the roadway and improving traffic. According to the county’s own assessments, the residential developments proposed around the Gravenstein neighborhood would add approximately 1,000 car trips per day on North Road and 164th Street.

After 2 p.m., it takes Tillett more than 20 minutes to get from the intersection of North Road and 164th Street, down the hill — four blocks — to the grocery store.

“And still the county found there was no significant impact,” Tillett said. “It’s because the projects combined would add that many cars and the county can only look at the applications individually.”

Moving on

Frustrated county leaders wonder what their critics would have them do.

“There are areas where the county needs to do a better job,” County Councilman Dave Gossett said. “But you can’t stop growth. We can take this opportunity now that building has slowed down to really improve our codes and standards for the future.”

A year ago, the county’s planning department was getting 30 permit applications a month for residential subdivisions.

“I think we’ve seen nine so far this year,” Ladiser said. “We’ve overbuilt, and it’s an opportunity for us to step back and learn from what’s happened.”

That’s all well and good, say residents in the Gravenstein Neighborhood. But what will happen in a year or two when developers return?

“The problem is predictability,” Ladiser said. “If people could predict that the house they move into today will have a new one next door in five years, this process wouldn’t feel so bad. We need to find a way to get people actively engaged in land use and planning for future landuse so these decisions don’t come as surprises.”