North Bend considers annexation
December 17, 2008
By Michael Rowe
North Bend is poised to grow by 820 acres if a planned annexation gets the go-ahead from the City Council. If successful, the annexation would bring the Mount Si, Tanner and Wood River neighborhoods into the city of North Bend in January of 2010.
Council members will consider a petition to annex several large tracks near Interstate-90 at the first council meeting of the new year on Jan. 6. Before the matter can go forward, the council must give its support to the annexation proponents to circulate a final petition.
To be successful, the final petition must receive the support of property owners who represent 60 percent of the total accessed value of the affected property.
If the proponents of the petition get the needed signatures on the final petition, then the city will hold a public hearing to decide whether to finalize the annexation. The process will likely take the entire year to complete and, barring delays, the annexation is expected to occur in January of 2010.
North Bend City Administrator Duncan Wilson said that the petition before the council was signed by a variety of property owners. Wilson indicated that some of the annexation proponents own vacant lots in the affected area, others are developers, and some are single-family residential owners.
“The question of why the property owners want to annex is varied,” Wilson said. “Some may wish to take advantage of zoning in the city, others understand that they cannot subdivide into smaller residential lots while in the county. There are others that may want the lower property tax payments assessed in the city.”
John Day, owner of John Day Homes, submitted the annexation petition to the city. He owns property in the affected area, but has no plans to develop in the near future. Day said that he was a supporter of the Utility Local Improvement District No. 6, which will provide water services in the annexation area. He noted that the improvement district facilities need to be paid for and that the annexation will help provide funding for the project.
Day said that residents in the annexation area should support joining North Bend.
“There is no good reason not to annex out to Truck Town,” Day said.
Residents of the annexation area might also benefit from the annexation by increasing their access to local government.
“They can drive five minutes to a council meeting here, as opposed to driving into downtown Seattle to attend a (King) County Council meeting,” said Wilson.
According to Day, the access to local government is an important factor. He believes that property owners in the area will find more support for development plans from North Bend than from the County Council.
Currently, the King County Council does not allow development in the annexation area, unless the developers agree to follow North Bend’s planning guidelines. The annexation area is designated as an urban growth area by the county, which means that development has to follow the zoning and planning requirements of adjacent municipalities.
Day also thinks the residents in the annexation area will benefit from improved police protection. North Bend has a contract with the King County Sheriff’s Department to provide police services. Day thinks that if the annexation area becomes part of the city, the sheriff’s deputies can police the area better.
The annexation is also in response to the anticipated lifting of the water moratorium and the ability to receive sewer services from North Bend’s Utility Local Improvement District No. 6. Existing homes in the area are served by the Sallal water system, and there will be no requirement for existing homes with septic systems to connect to city sewer services. New construction and development in the area will be able to access and benefit from city utility services.
Wilson pointed out that the area would be developed, whether it is in North Bend or remains part of unincorporated King County. Part of the city’s interest in annexing the area is to maintain proper zoning and development standards.
“This is especially true of the commercial areas where the need for proper zoning and design controls are most crucial,” Wilson said.
Another way North Bend could benefit from the annexation is that it offers additional property tax revenues. A study by Berk and Associates, consultants for the city on this issue, indicates that North Bend would see a positive fiscal impact from the annexation. The study estimates that, in 2010, the city could add as much as $200,000 in surplus funds to city coffers. The study suggests that this amount would increase to $900,000 a year in surplus city revenues by 2014.
“Annexing the property and extending sewer in this area is an absolutely essential step in securing the long term sustainability of the city of North Bend,” Wilson said. “In order that the city comply with the mandates of the Growth Management Act and secure sufficient revenues to provide needed services and repay outstanding obligations, these initiatives must be completed.”
Day feels that there will be enough support for the annexation. Property owners representing 25 percent of the assessed value of the annexation area signed the initial petition.
The city might not stop expanding with the 2010 annexation. The study by Berk and Associates includes a plan to annex additional properties in January of 2015. This second phase of annexations would include the Shamrock Park, Maloney Grove and Opstad neighborhoods.
Reach reporter Michael Bayless Rowe at mrowe@snovalleystar.com or 425-392-6434 Ext. 248.
Comments
One Response to “North Bend considers annexation”
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
There’s no good reason to be annexed either. However, since most people have already signed off on the ULID and in the process agreed to waive the right to oppose annexation it’s probably going to happen anyway.
The supposed benefits listed in this article of annexation are:
* Lower property taxes. I don’t believe this for one second. The article talks about how the city expects to receive more revenue from doing this. I’ve lived in other areas where annexation happened and people swore up and down it would lower property taxes. In my experience this may be true in the short term but a couple years down the line they always end up needing more than they expected.
* Needed for the ULID. The ULID doesn’t require that the properties be in the city. It has it’s own plan to pay for it. Even if annexation doesn’t happen the ULID will. They’re entirely separate issues.
* Improved police protection. You’ve got to be kidding me. The city of North Bend (as the article points out) pays the county for police protection. It’s the same cops in the same cars doing the same job. What exactly will be better? If you say more cops, I’ll ask how that’s going to be paid for without higher property taxes? Even if you assume the county passes along the costs to the city without any profit, more cops cost more money not less.
* Better access to government. The idea that we can stop caring about the county council and just worry about the city is ludicrous. The county still can override the city. Instead you’ve got twice the government meetings to go to if you really want to stay on top of things.
The only real benefit is to developers who wish to develop property out here easier. There are no real benefits to people with developed property already. It’s just more bureaucracy that we end up having to pay for.