County passes on Sultan annexation decision to BRB

The Snohomish County Council considered Sultan's 124th Street annexation proposal last week, voting unanimously not to oppose the annexation but also invoking the jurisdiction of the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) to add another layer of public process.

The vote took place during the general legislative session of the Snohomish County Council on Wednesday, May 18, after a brief discussion.

According to county documents, the annexation area encompasses 78.71 acres of land just outside Sultan on the north side of 124th Street S.E., and has an assessed valuation of $1.08 million. The property includes a population of nine across four residences in the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA).

The annexation area includes a 9.2-acre gravel pit owned by Snohomish County. The county would retain ownership of the pit should annexation occur.

The county council had two separate motions for consideration; one that did not oppose the annexation or invoke the BRB and an amended motion that did not oppose the annexation but invoked the BRB.

In the case of an annexation request, the county council has the option to invoke the jurisdiction of the BRB, which triggers a review process that includes a public hearing. Conducted by a quorum of the five-member BRB, the hearing gives parties of record and members of the public the opportunity to provide testimony. Subsequently, the BRB will issue a decision to approve, deny or modify the annexation proposal as described in state law.

Sultan area residents living in the vicinity of the annexation area and in other parts of the city have largely been opposed to the annexation. Public hearings held at Sultan City Hall have been widely attended, with the stark majority of comments received in opposition. Opponents say the proposal is noncompliant with the city's Comprehensive Plan and in conflict with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA).

Other concerns raised by opposition include urban sprawl, traffic impacts and roadway hazards, lack of city infrastructure and creation of an oddly-formed boundary. They say the recent population allocation reduction in Sultan does not warrant annexation, and moving forward will create an island that does not fit in with surrounding properties.

In addition to oral testimony, opponents have submitted written comments to the city.

The annexation request was initiated by property owner Rusty Drivstuen, who owns acreage in the annexation area. In past public hearings, he has stated that, as part of the UGA, the property is slated for growth and ideal for residential development due to a lack of environmental constraints. Other proponents have stated that growth in Sultan has been too stagnant, and new residents could help spur economic development in the city.-á -á

Fallgatter Law Group attorney Jocelynne Fallgatter spoke against the annexation proposal at last Wednesday's county council meeting. She informed council that a group of Sultan residents filed their own petition to invoke BRB jurisdiction, a procedure guided by state law that mandates signatures of 5 percent of the voters in the affected area.

In addition to her oral testimony, Fallgatter submitted written comments to the council, informing them the petition includes signatures from 10 percent of the voters in the annexation area, exceeding state mandates. The group also paid the required $200 fee.

"This annexation is wholly inappropriate for a number of reasons,GÇ¥ Fallgatter said.

Fallgatter said she and other stakeholders have identified numerous issues with the proposal, including incongruences as to the size of the annexation area. She told council Sultan Code 16.16.020 prohibits the operation of a gravel pit inside city limits, and the annexation area also includes a 1.24-acre toxic waste site identified by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).

The Ecology-áwebsite states an area at 31819 124th St. S.E. has been designated as a state cleanup site for toxic substances. Ecology-ástaffer Carol Dorn was unavailable last week to provide additional information as to the nature of the substances.

In her written comments, Fallgatter cited what she feels are other issues with the proposal, including lack of an external agency review, inconsistencies with the GMA and lack of available city services to the affected area. She said the annexation would perpetuate an irregular city boundary.

Fallgatter faulted the city's process, which she said did not provide a thorough examination of proposal impacts as dictated by the city's Comprehensive Plan. She said the city used inconsistent numbers for its population allocation, which was reduced by the county in 2015.

The future population target is an important factor in determining if annexing more land is necessary to accommodate future growth.

"The city did not follow the statutory requirements for an annexation by petition,GÇ¥ Fallgatter said. "The information that they have provided to you is very sketchy; it's very minimal.GÇ¥

The city's proposal fails to meet the objectives of the BRB, she said. There are a total of nine BRB objectives outlined in state law, including prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, adjustment of impractical boundaries, protection of agricultural and rural lands and several others.-á -á

"There's nothing in the submittal from the city that tells you that this meets the objectives of the Boundary Review Board,GÇ¥ Fallgatter said.

Sultan City Administrator Ken Walker said the city opposed the county's amended motion to invoke the BRB, as it feels it is not the county's place to do so. He said there were no issues in relation to the county retaining ownership of the gravel pit, telling the council the city is willing to grandfather it in, so it can continue operations.

He said the city had done everything according to policy.

"The city did follow the appropriate policies, rules and everything that was necessary to do this,GÇ¥ Walker said. "We feel that council sending this to the Boundary Review Board adds an undue burden to the remaining citizens of Sultan and to the property owners in question.GÇ¥

County Planning & Development Services Long-Range Planning Supervisor Jacqueline Reid informed council as to the reasoning behind the amended motion invoking the BRB, which was directly related to the county gravel pit.

The 9.2-acre Kidling Pit is primarily used for stockpiling materials for road repairs and maintenance, as well as the storage of related county equipment. The inclusion of the gravel pit into the proposed annexation area makes sense because it is centrally located, Reid said, but the county should have an interlocal agreement in place with Sultan that clarifies continued county ownership.

"In the amended motion before you, the county does not oppose the annexation, and invokes the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board only for the purposes of ensuring that an interlocal agreement between the county and the city of Sultan relating to property ownership is signed prior to the Boundary Review Board hearing,GÇ¥ Reid said.

The council's amended motion to not oppose the annexation and invoke the BRB was made based on the lack of an interlocal agreement. But Snohomish County Councilmember Hans Dunshee acknowledged there might be other concerns.

"There appear to be other issues aside from the gravel pit,GÇ¥ Dunshee said.

Dunshee confirmed with legal counsel that the BRB hearing would be broad in scope, allowing anybody with concerns about the proposal to come forward and present their views. Dunshee said that in light of issues he had read about and ones that were presented to the council during public comment, he wanted to make sure the public would be able to voice their concerns.

"They may be right or wrong, but I think that we should give all the possible chance for people to air those views and have that worked out in a public setting,GÇ¥ Dunshee said.

Dunshee moved to pass the amended motion invoking the BRB.

"I'm not sure that I would vote to oppose the annexation, but at this time, I think that the proper place to send it is to the Boundary Review Board,GÇ¥ Dunshee said.