The Clark County Council met recently with Vancouver officials to discuss the city’s potential plans for annexing land within its urban growth boundary. The council’s collaboration, however, hinges on addressing the financial implications of such a move for both the city and the county.
Vancouver’s City Manager, Lon Pluckhahn, highlighted the challenges posed by the existing local government revenue system, suggesting that revenues are currently incompatible. He noted that this discussion is made necessary by Washington’s Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990, which mandates that cities and counties designate areas for future urban growth.
This law emphasizes cities’ responsibility to ultimately annex the land within their growth boundaries. In a presentation earlier this year, Vancouver staff outlined various annexation options, including a proposal to annex the entirety of its 56-square-mile urban growth area.
These areas include parts of Hazel Dell, Felida, Salmon Creek, and Brush Prairie, all situated outside Vancouver’s current city limits but within its growth boundaries. County Councilor Michelle Belkot expressed concerns specific to her district, which borders Vancouver, stating that many residents prefer to remain under county jurisdiction.
Belkot is wary of further discussions regarding annexation, citing the fiscal consequences for the county, including a projected loss of sales and property tax revenues to the city.
During the work session, city staff did not offer specific annexation scenarios but presented maps detailing regions already receiving municipal services, such as water and sewer. According to Rebecca Kennedy, Vancouver’s Deputy Director of Community Development, Clark County’s situation is quite unique within the state due to its extensive urban growth areas, where the county is striving to provide urban services while the city has taken steps to extend its services to many residents.
Kennedy remarked that Vancouver has one of the state’s largest urban growth areas, and the local development has been influenced by the city’s service extensions. She further requested that the county contemplate adopting city development standards within these urban growth areas.
County Councilor Glen Yung acknowledged that residents in unincorporated areas harbor significant concerns about annexation; however, he pointed out the county’s limitations in providing urban services. He emphasized the need for discussions around annexation, insisting that efficiencies could be achieved through a collaborative effort.
Yung also noted the importance of community engagement in any potential annexation process, expressing appreciation for the city officials’ attempts to ensure neither jurisdiction faces financial instability as discussions progress.
While annexation would result in a reduction of tax revenue for the county, city officials pointed out that this development would eliminate the need for the county to provide services to those residents. As financial equations remain a concern, city staff aim to strike a balance to ensure that the county’s financial losses do not offset the decreasing demand for services.
Pluckhahn admitted that the process would entail considerable costs, especially in upgrading unincorporated areas to meet urban standards. In light of this, city staff hope that both jurisdictions can advocate together for increased state resources to assist with the costs associated with annexation.
Kennedy underscored the necessity for collaboration, detailing the complex, multistep process involved in transferring revenues, records, and possibly staff to facilitate an efficient annexation that does not disrupt services.
County Council Chair Sue Marshall described these efforts as daunting but crucial, emphasizing that discussions regarding annexation are overdue. She requested that city staff provide the county with information regarding which areas are being considered for annexation and the anticipated timeline for these plans.
The most recent major annexation by the city occurred in 2017, involving the Van Mall North area.
image source from：columbian
