Sultan City Council heard additional testimony in relation to the 124th Street annexation proposal last week, voting to continue the public hearing for a second time until the next council meeting.
Interim city planner Brad Collins advised the continuance based on the fact that posted signage notifying the public of the hearing was not placed as early as the city had intended. The public hearing was initially opened at the council meeting on Jan. 28, and then continued until Thursday, Feb. 11. With the council's new vote to extend, the hearing will reconvene sometime after 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 25.
The 124th Street annexation petition area is situated on the north side of 124th Street Southeast, a dead-end roadway west of Sultan Basin Road and 1.4 miles north of the intersection at Sultan Basin Road and U.S. 2. The area to be annexed consists of eight parcels equaling 80 acres, plus a small amount of right-of-way on 124th.-á
The property is in the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA), but outside city limits. A successful annexation would incorporate those 80 acres into the city limits. Property owners are using a 60 percent petition method, which is a common way to achieve annexation in the state of Washington.-á
Five residents spoke against the proposal, with one resident in favor.
Residents Mark Bothwell, Gerry Gibson and Jean Roberts questioned the legality of the public hearing, being as the 60 percent petition was incomplete at the time the public hearing was convened.
"As of the Jan. 28 public hearing, the record indicates that the petition for annexation had not yet been certified as legally sufficient. We are here at a continuation of that hearing,GÇ¥ Roberts said. "This is a procedural impossibility under RCW 35A.14.130. Public notification and scheduling of a public hearing shall only occur after a legally sufficient petition for annexation has been filed with the city.GÇ¥
In the 60 percent petition method, the petitioner is first required to obtain signatures from property owners representing 10 percent of the assessed value of the proposed annexation area. If the city agrees to explore the idea, the petitioner is then required to go back and acquire signatures from property owners representing 60 percent of the assessed value.
Analysis to determine whether the petition truly represents 60 percent of the property valuation is completed by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.-á
The 124th Street annexation proposal is being driven by property owner Rusty Drivstuen, who submitted the 10 percent petition last May. He had the majority of the 60 percent petition completed by October, with four of the five signatures required to represent 60 percent of property ownership. -á -á
According to Collins, the city moved the petition forward to Snohomish County without the fifth signature based on the belief they would be able to finalize the petition while it was at the assessor's office. This did not turn out to be the case, Collins said, so they will now resubmit the petition with all five signatures.
Drivstuen, who did not speak during the Jan. 28 hearing, addressed councilmembers, speaking in favor of the proposal. Drivstuen is a lifelong Sky Valley resident and business owner. He owns the Mountain View Chevrolet gas station and convenience store, in the eastern portion of Sultan city limits on U.S. 2 by the roundabout at 339th. He strongly advocated for the annexation, saying Sultan needs more rooftops in order to grow.
When he first proposed annexation back in 2006, residential development was the ultimate goal.
"I have spent over $2 million investing in this valley. I've given my whole life to it,GÇ¥ Drivstuen said. "I'm proud of what I've done. I believe in growth; I believe in helping this community.GÇ¥
The property is ideal for residential development, he said. Additional homes in the area would increase the viability of mixed-use commercial development in the eastern city limits, Drivstuen said, which would offer significant benefit to the city.
"Downtown Sultan floods ' the future is in the four-lane,GÇ¥ Drivstuen said. "I've seen it since I've been a kid in this valley, and I put my money where my mouth was.GÇ¥
Drivstuen gave council an overview of his community involvement, and said he felt he was being unfairly portrayed in the media and by those opposed to the annexation proposal. He said he has always respected the opinions of those who don't agree with the idea of annexation and wished that the respect were reciprocal.
"I have sponsored (an) unbelievable amount of things for kids in this valley, and when I read the stuff in the Monroe Monitor it sounds like I'm the worst guy that ever walked; I'm a greedy, dirty developer,GÇ¥ Drivstuen said. "I've been working on this thing for almost 10 years; this isn't something that just came up yesterday.GÇ¥
Following public testimony, councilmembers Joe Neigel and Russell Wiita asked for clarification about the legality of the hearing. Wiita said he would be amenable to closing the public hearing and then opening a new hearing at the next city council meeting, since the petition was not complete at the time the hearing began.
"This hearing was opened two weeks ago,GÇ¥ Wiita said. "Would we be wiser to close this hearing today and open a new hearing in two weeks to make sure that we are following that RCW?GÇ¥
Collins said he would confer with the city attorney to get a determination on the legality.
Collins planned to submit the completed petition on Friday, Feb. 12. The county assessor's office will review the petition to determine if it meets the 60 percent valuation criteria, based on the current market value of the property.
"There's a reasonably good chance that it's over the 60 percent, so I'm comfortable that it will be validated this time,GÇ¥ Collins said. "So tomorrow I can send it to the county assessor's office. Once it's validated and once the council approves the resolution, then the boundary review board can take it up.GÇ¥
It is the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board that will make the final determination on whether or not the property will be annexed.-á
Collins said he will confirm with the Sultan city attorney as to whether or not they need to redo the public hearing.
"We're trying real hard to make the process work for everyone,GÇ¥ Collins said. "We're not trying to rush through it or anything; we're trying to do all the right things.GÇ¥
Photo by Chris Hendrickson An east-facing view of 124th Street Southeast, near the eastern portion of the proposed annexation area. The area on the north side of the road is in the cityGÇÖs UGA; the south side is not.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment