[CouvScott]

Vancouver has special interest in annexation bill

Friday, February 09, 2007
By KATHIE DURBIN Columbian staff writer

OLYMPIA -- The fight over who controls annexation decisions in Clark County has made its way to the 2007 Washington Legislature.

Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, introduced a bill that would give boundary review boards the authority to expand annexations. The bill would reverse a 2006 Washington Supreme Court ruling that such boards could only reduce annexation proposals.

"That makes no sense," said Moeller, a former Vancouver city councilman.

House Bill 1162 gives boundary review boards the authority to add or delete territory and to adjust the boundary of a proposed annexation to include "all or any land located within an unincorporated urban growth area."

The purpose of his bill, Moeller said, is to allow cities to annex adjacent urbanized areas.

"The whole idea behind the Growth Management Act is that things that look like cities and act like cities should be cities," he said.

Clark County commissioners dismantled the county's boundary review board last year after Vancouver talked about asking the board to expand a proposed 823-acre annexation to encompass an urbanized area 20 times as large.

Moeller says HB 1162 is a precursor to a bill he plans to introduce in a future session that would require annexation in the state's most populous counties to be governed by boundary review boards.

"I want eventually for our county to have a boundary review board again," he said.

Opposition to the bill comes mainly from people who refuse to sign annexation petitions and then learn that cities have annexed their land anyway, Moeller contends.

"They don't understand the idea of a republic," he said. In a republic, "You get your say, but you don't always get your way."

Suzan Wallace, Vancouver's annexation coordinator, told the House Local Government Committee this week that the bill is important to the city's ability to plan for future growth.

"As Vancouver is the fourth-largest city and one of the fastest-growing in the state, we see this bill as a tool to implement our annexation plan, and we do have an active annexation plan," Wallace said in an interview. Being able to plan for delivery of urban services also is critical to the city's business recruitment efforts, she said.

"The role of the boundary review boards is to assure that services are delivered in the most effective and efficient way," she said.

The bill also has drawn support from King County, the cities of Renton and Longview, and the Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards.

But local taxing districts have concerns.

Harold Schlomann, executive director of the Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts, said his organization opposes the bill because it would give boundary review boards unlimited authority to expand city boundaries -- and force residents of special taxing districts into cities -- without a vote of the people.

"I believe all annexations should be approved by voters," Schlomann said.

Clark County did not testify at the hearing. Moeller said Mike Burgess, the county's new lobbyist, told him: "We don't have a boundary review board, so we don't have an issue here."


Update

* Previously: The Washington Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that boundary review boards could only reduce, not enlarge, annexation proposals.

* What's new: Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, has introduced a bill that would give those boards the authority to expand annexation areas.

* What's next: Moeller hopes to introduce legislation in a future session requiring that boundary review boards govern annexations in the state's most populous counties.

[PuyoPiyo]

Keep it up.

[PDXPaul]

"We don't have a boundary review board so we don't have a problem." What a bunch of hacks. Fucking embarassing.

[mcbaby]

i'm glad i don't live there any more.

[CouvScott]

Clark county commissioners are idiots, here's proof from the Columbian today...

Many more can fit into Vancouver, state says

Tuesday, June 12, 2007
BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN AND JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writers

There's no need to approve a costly expansion of Clark County's urban areas, the state's economic development agency said in a wide-ranging letter sent last week to Clark County's commissioners.

Vancouver's urban area has more than enough room to pack in homes and jobs for the 80,000 or so newcomers expected by 2024, according to assumptions made by the city's planners and embraced by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.

The director of the local economic development agency dismissed the notion, saying that the density of new jobs expected by the state is "simply not going to happen."

In a hearing before the county's planning commission, Vancouver-based developers' lawyer Randy Printz called the state's letter­ "silly."

The letter comes as commissioners debates whether to expand the county's urban areas by 14 percent.

David Andersen, a state plan review manager who said he collaborated on the letter, said keeping urban boundaries where they are would save public money and reflect a recent jump in demand for condominiums and other dense developments.

"Infill and redevelopment is going to be a larger fraction of development in the future than it was in the past," Andersen said. "Communities with more compact development patterns are increasingly going to become more economically competitive."

That may be true in other places, said Bart Phillips, director of the Columbia River Economic Development Council. But not here.

"It's probably a valid determination for somebody viewing it from 95 miles away," Phillips said.

Vancouver, Phillips said, won't generate as many jobs as the county wants it to unless it pushes out the urban boundaries.

"If we're going to start doing nothing but building 40-story office towers, then yeah," he said. "But that's not the market. That's simply not going to happen."

Steve Horenstein, a Miller Nash attorney who often represents developers, said that Vancouver would only lose out on new projects if leaders don't let the city's urban boundary expand.

"I don't understand the policy reason why Vancouver wants to contain its growth," said Horenstein. "That is not a recipe for being open for business."

At a public hearing last week, Vancouver Councilman Dan Tonkovich said the city has two major objections to the county's growth plan: expanding urban growth areas; and creating a lower-density area called "Three Creeks" including Hazel Dell, Felida and Salmon Creek.

Tonkovich said the city wants "eye-to-eye contact" with county officials about both issues. But in a letter to the county, he warned that Vancouver will "explore all other options" should the county ignore the city's concerns.

Those options are likely to include appealing the county's growth plan to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Last week, the city council met with its top planning officials in a closed-door session to discuss litigation.

Dick Deleissegues, a member of the county planning commission, said Monday that he doesn't see room in Vancouver for all those new people.

"Do you think they can increase, in the next 20 years, the population in the city limits while causing an acceptable amount of traffic congestion at the end of the 20-year period?" he said. "It doesn't seem reasonable to me."

Still, at a hearing on the growth plan Thursday, three of the county planning commission's seven members said they were either opposed to pushing out the boundaries or unprepared to consider the question.

"We're not supposed to be doing this," said Ron Barca, a planning commissioner who said he'd be happy sticking with the urban boundaries set in 2004. "We launched right back into full-time occupation of the entire long-range planning staff for the last three years. ? It's just a tragic waste of public resources."



The debate

If its urban area doesn't grow, will Vancouver have room for 80,000 new residents by 2024?

- On one side: No, say development advocates. Packing people and jobs that tightly would require reliance on mass transit, if it's possible at all, and Vancouver hasn't set aside the money for that.

- On another side: Yes, says the state's economic development agency and the city of Vancouver. Denser development trends over the past two years are likely to intensify in the future.

- How to get involved: Contact county planning director Marty Snell at 360-397-2280 or marty.snell@clark.wa.gov .

[65MAX]

The second article seems like a separate issue from the annexations. They're talking about expanding the "urban area", similar to our UGB, to accommodate 20 years of growth. Personally, I think that the areas set aside in Clark Co for development ARE large enough to support 20 years of growth. And regarding the first article, these areas should be annexed into Vancouver or Camas or whatever as they are being developed. Just like the developing, unincorporated areas of Washington and Clackamas Counties should be.

Of course, you've got your Dunthorpes and Cedar Mills and Oak Groves, established neighborhoods that will fight annexation tooth and nail. But again, that's a separate issue as well.

[CouvScott]

:previous: That's true. I forgot that the original fight was over annexations. But annexations wouldn't be as necessary if the county learned how to conserve nature and grow up not out in the first place. (this is not directed at you 65MAX - I'm just venting) It makes me mad when I know there has to be some compensation going on between the county commissioners and the developers to let them develop at free will. For the first time in my life, the inner city fields, undeveloped and privately owned, are getting filled in with townhouses and condos and the city is starting to feel more dense.

[65MAX]

^^^^
I totally agree, the County has been miserably negligent, maybe even corrupt. Thankfully, Vancouver is trying to do the right thing, and the market is now ripe for infill development with mixed uses. If only the hacks at the County would get out of the way and keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

[65MAX]

I'm waiting for the investigative report showing who at Clark Co is on the take from the developers. We know Betty Sue Morris is one of them.

[Urban Zombie®]

i'm glad i don't live there any more.

Ditto. Leaving No. Clark County, and all of its kooky, imbred-hillbilly-goodness, is one of the great accomplishments of my life so far.

[PuyoPiyo]

Well, those "Three Creeks", like Salmon Creek, Felida, and Hazel Dell are expanding really fast than I thought. Hazel Dell got its big shoppingtown, like Target, Payless Shoes, PetCo, Office Max, Best Buy, on the Hazel Dell Ave, also they got Panda Express and rebuilding the Hollywood Video right behind where the Hollywood Video are right now. Also they got new big gym next to Hollywood Video.

At Salmon Creek, they divided the HWY 99 into two roads, to keep the traffic in control, also got alot of new stores next to Burgerville since they divided the HWY 99, plus they got a big hostipal, the Legacy Hosptial.

Felida is still one of the fast growing in Vancouver, it got a new big park, the Felida Park, also every empty land are going to be filled of houses, the empty land are getting disappear.

Now those people who doubt that Vancouver will get 80,000 residents by 2024 seems ridicilious to me...

[CodyY]

Isn't Clark county the republican area of the Portland Metro Area? For some reason I have it in my head that they are...Sorry for the randomness

[65MAX]

Just the unincorporated areas north of Vancouver. Van itself is OK.

[seaskyfan]

One of the legislative districts in Clark County (49th) is represented by all Democrats, including one of Washington's five openly gay legislators.

[MarkDaMan]

Isn't Clark county the republican area of the Portland Metro Area? For some reason I have it in my head that they are...Sorry for the randomness

actually I think outer ClackamAss holds that title...Washington County has become surprisingly blue though, and projected to remain the largest burban area in the Portland metro...it used to be solidly red, so there's hope for the unconverted...

[Snowden352]

Wait... is that 80,000 just for Vancouver or Clark County? I'm confused... I thought that Vancouver was well within the boundaries of current urban growth. Just to add to the confusion, I thought Clark County, not just Vancouver, grew by over 10,000 people in the last year alone (and has been one of the fastest growing counties in the state). So... is the article about growth in Vancouver or Clark County? God, I'm confused...

[CouvScott]

I'm waiting for the investigative report showing who at Clark Co is on the take from the developers. We know Betty Sue Morris is one of them.

You would think that the developer handouts would help her pay for a new hairstyle. But seriously, I will never consider voting for her and encourage others to do the same.

[CouvScott]

Wait... is that 80,000 just for Vancouver or Clark County? I'm confused... I thought that Vancouver was well within the boundaries of current urban growth. Just to add to the confusion, I thought Clark County, not just Vancouver, grew by over 10,000 people in the last year alone (and has been one of the fastest growing counties in the state). So... is the article about growth in Vancouver or Clark County? God, I'm confused...

I think the 80,000 is just for Vancouver and Vancouver's unincorporated portion of the UGB.

[CouvScott]

Wednesday, June 20, 2007
BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN, Columbian staff writer

At least two of Clark County's three commissioners seem determined to push forward with a growth plan similar to the one that got a thumbs-down last week from a panel of citizens.

In public hearings scheduled to resume at 1:30 p.m. today, the commissioners are trying to predict the future location of some 184,000 new county residents over the next 20 years.

Last week, the county's planning commission recommended that the county scrap plans to allow big-lot urban homes on 1,663 acres in Pleasant Valley and near the county fairgrounds.

But the county's elected officials seemed undeterred.

"The planning commission's recommendation is a recommendation, and we appreciate it," Commissioner Betty Sue Morris said Friday.

"It's our decision to make," Commissioner Marc Boldt noted during Tuesday's hearing.

And Commissioner Steve Stuart suggested Tuesday that it's fiscally safer to set aside too much land for new homes than too little, in order to collect the fees that new houses generate.

Though the planning commission's talks last week touched on everything from school tax revenues to the future of the county's farm industry, sustained objections to what some call residential sprawl have come from the city of Vancouver.

"What we are doing is fundamentally different from what the other cities are doing," Brian Snodgrass, Vancouver's long-range planner, said Tuesday in the hearing at the county public service center at 1300 Franklin Street in Vancouver.

Today's Vancouver residents are looking for cheaper, smaller homes than they did in the 1990s, Snodgrass said, and opening too much land to that new, denser construction would only accelerate migration and stick future taxpayers with the bill for their roads and sewers.

But Morris said keeping the urban boundary tight would just drive development into rural areas.

"We don't want more than 10 percent of people going out there," she said. "They build on septic tanks. They put up what people are calling McMansions."

Meanwhile, owners of the land under debate watched, their financial futures at stake.

"For months and months and months, we're in," said Virginia Nugent, 69, who lives in Pleasant Valley on 8 acres that the planning commission voted not to recommend for urbanization. "The last minute, they jerk us out. How can anybody plan their future? It's horrible to be in this limbo."

Nugent's husband said he retired last year with only enough to live on for eight or nine more years.

"If they make this developable, we could probably put 40 or 50 (houses) on the 8 acres," said Jack Nugent, 71.

Ron Barca, the planning commission member who was firmest in opposing county growth plans, said the county hadn't fully assessed the costs of urbanizing land such as the Nugents'.

"There isn't enough money to go around for all the areas to be built out to the density that individuals would like," he said.



Update


Previously: Last week, Clark County's planning commission recommended that the county roll back plans for residential development north of Vancouver.

What's new: At their own hearings, county commissioners highlighted their differences with the planning commission.

What's next: Hearings continue at 1:30 p.m. today on the sixth floor of the county public service center in Vancouver. The commissioners start deliberations next week.

[65MAX]

So how much of the 1663 acres in this area is Betty Sue a stakeholder in? Can we please get an investigative reporter to dig up this information, because we all know damn well she's got her grubby little paws in all kinds of sweetheart deals. She's not a commissioner because she's interested in the public good.

[PuyoPiyo]

County, Vancouver will cooperate on growth

Wednesday, December 05, 2007
BY JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer

Vancouver and Clark County governments approved an agreement this week that aims to push old hostilities aside in favor of cooperation on annexation and growth management. The deal comes only days before Friday's deadline to appeal the county's updated growth plan.

The city council unanimously approved the agreement Monday night. County commissioners approved it Tuesday morning, despite Commissioner Betty Sue Morris' vocal dissent.

The agreement could go a long way toward smoothing a relationship that has been tumultuous since county commissioners in January 2006 disbanded the boundary review board as a way to prevent Vancouver from seeking to annex up to 70,000 people.

Part of the agreement is an updated version of the city's annexation blueprint, which sets a rough schedule for annexing more than 57 square miles during the next 20 years.

City officials have a variety of reasons for wanting to annex areas outside their city limits:

- Political clout. Vancouver increased its standing in Olympia and Washington, D.C., when the Cascade Park annexation made Vancouver the state's fourth-largest city.

- Representation. Some people who live outside the city limits receive sewer and water service from the city, but they cannot elect the city council members who set utility rates.

- Growth management. Vancouver officials say that cities, not counties, should provide urban services.

The agreement says the city and county will work cooperatively in pursuing annexations inside the Vancouver urban growth area, but county officials insist they aren't agreeing to support every annexation.

"This isn't a game of Risk where jurisdictions get together and move pieces around on a board," Commissioner Steve Stuart said. "This is people's lives."
Morris said she believes the agreement will cause future friction with city council members who might become irked if the county doesn't support a particular annexation.

"The agreement does not bind the county in any way, shape or form to endorse or support the annexation blueprint," she said. "But most people think that it does."

Morris said county policy calls for commissioners to support annexations when the city provides two or more services, such as sewer and water. But the annexation blueprint covers the entire Vancouver urban growth area, including large tracts where the city provides no services.

Commissioner Marc Boldt, who cast the swing vote in favor of the agreement, was a state representative when Vancouver annexed Cascade Park at the beginning of 1997. Boldt said he doesn't want to find himself again hearing constituents complain how the city made promises it could not keep and instead raised taxes.

As for Hazel Dell, "If the city really wants annexation, go for a public vote," Boldt said.

Bud Van Cleve, president of the Northeast Hazel Dell Neighborhood Association, said he doesn't believe his community's destiny is to be part of Vancouver.

"I'm not opposed to annexation when it's needed; I am opposed to annexation without a vote of the people," Van Cleve told commissioners. "Vancouver has nothing to offer us, except for higher taxes."

City council members were decidedly more positive before approving the agreement Monday night.

"It's not the end," Councilwoman Jeanne Harris said. "It's the very beginning of a new relationship with the county."

Update

- Previously: Vancouver and Clark County clashed over a growth plan and how urban area annexation should be handled.

- What's new: The local governments agreed on a blueprint that calls for cooperation and gradual annexation over the next 20 years.

- What's next: The county growth plan is expected to be challenged by other groups prior to Friday's deadline

[PuyoPiyo]

This is what Vancouver is going to be look like.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/Ufozacky2k/A20COV20UGA20with20City20Limits20Ma.jpg

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/annexation.asp?menuid=10463&submenuid=16654

Also my thoughts, the currently Vancouver's population was 160,000 and if they add 70,000 then that would be 230,000. That's larger population than Spokane and Tacoma at about 200,000. Also to me this map look like it's almost doubling the size of area which should be about 65 to possible 100 arces, that's large than Spokane at 58 sq miles and Tacoma at 62 sq miles according to Wikipedia.

Good Luck, Couve!