Who is surprised that Everett is rethinking the annexation of Eastmont/Hilton Lake neighborhoods east of Silver Lake?
Even with a possible $10 million sales tax rebate, annexing developed areas not consistent with their own planning strategy does not pencil out. That should not be a surprise.
I don’t care one way or another about whether Everett annexes. I do care about the reasons Everett is reluctant to move forward with annexation. It is all about the money.
Over the years, cities have been accused of “cherry picking” commercial properties in annexations because they represented a revenue stream for the city taking them in. In some cases the resulting criticism has been that they left the existing residential areas out because they represented a financial liability.
There is no doubt they are both true. My question would be “Why is the county planning and permitting urban subdivisions in unincorporated areas?” It would seem to me that cities would be better able to gauge the need and the corresponding ability to render services.
In rural counties, cities drive development because they provide the services. The character of development is clearly different comparing areas with services to areas without services. In this case services are water and sewer. Development emanates from the central service provider to neighborhoods on the fringe. More dense residential and commercial development in the city is contrasted to less of both across the city line.
The availability of water is the first major obstacle to development. In most cases, drinking water is available to most areas through public water providers. In unincorporated areas water districts do the job.
With sewers, the situation is a little more difficult. Traditionally, septic systems with drain fields provided the means for residential development inside and outside of cities. When lots are large, this is a workable technology. As residential lots have gotten smaller, the need for public sewer systems has increased. The same is true with businesses. When a mom and pop business opened, it could function on a septic and drain field. As businesses got bigger, they also needed public sewers.
Today we can still find business enterprises in rural non-sewered areas, but they have significant land allocated for drain fields. Drain field technologies enable some larger businesses to exist in areas not served by sewers, but more often than not, they are too expensive.
As cities do their comprehensive planning, they address all the needs of a city as they proceed. They recognize that residential development creates burdens on all the utilities, the police, the fire and the schools. At one time, property tax revenue was a reliable source of government funding. We used to have the ability to raise revenue by as much as 6% per year. When the 6% was reduced to 1%, residential development became a liability. The change was good for tax payers; it wasn’t good for service providers.
In order to offset the liability of residential neighborhoods, comprehensive plans need revenue producing land uses that do not create undue burdens on municipal services. If you want to characterize them as cherries, that works for me. Planners need to be mindful of long term financial needs of the greater community when they do their work.
Snohomish County paid little attention to long term needs of the area when they adopted the plan for Silver Firs and the properties east of the Bothell-Everett Highway. Until just recently, there were no businesses east of 35th Ave SE. I don’t know how many homes have been built in the thousands of acres east of Everett and Mill Creek, but if there are only six to the acre, there are about ten thousand homes built outside anyone’s Urban Growth Area.
There is probably a standard that suggests how much General Commercial area a city needs for every hundred acres of residential, but I don’t know what it is. Whatever that number might be, the area east of Everett and Mill Creek is definitely short.
If all those homes represent a liability, why would either city annex the land? Then if you take into consideration the shortage of vacant land suitable for commercial development you can see there are problems for much of that area.
Snohomish County will tell you that they are the one government agency with the expertise to do “Comprehensive Planning” because they have the resources to do the job right. There is no doubt they had the resources, but they didn’t have the long term view of the area in mind when they “planned” for the area.
If they had considered the long term needs of the community when they developed the area, it might make sense for either Everett or Mill Creek to take on the residential liability along with the commercial benefit. With Snohomish County, “long term planning” is a misnomer.
The potential Everett annexation is/was huge, but the remaining urban development that already exists but not included in the current consideration is the really big gorilla. What sense will there be for any city to take on that area?
Mukilteo faces the same issue in their recent declaration to annex south to Norma Beach Road. Is there enough of an asset to take on the liability?
Lake Stevens faces a similar dilemma around Frontier Village. How will the city pay for services in a huge geographic area with limited ability to expand commercial? Why would they take on responsibility for residential areas as far away as Calvalero’s Corner without the ability to pay for them with some form of commercial revenue stream?
For Snohomish County, selling building permits was the short term revenue source they needed to cover their budget. Approving plats and collecting fees was their motivation. As far as I can tell, it has always been about getting the money before a city. If they were really concerned about the long term health of the area they would have been doing joint planning with the cities to make sure there was continuity with other local plans. That didn’t happen. They just picked the cherries.
So many negative images come to mind when I think about how painful it will be to fix all that damage. There needs to be some incentive for cities to take on these unfunded liabilities, but there don’t seem to be too many on the horizon.
If you think that we can just go on without addressing this issue just wait until the new roads need to be repaired or the residents ask about other urban services.
I am open to suggestions.
No Loss for Words
Even A Sharp Pencil won’t help that Annexation!
by Steve DanaWho is surprised that Everett is rethinking the annexation of Eastmont/Hilton Lake neighborhoods east of Silver Lake?
Even with a possible $10 million sales tax rebate, annexing developed areas not consistent with their own planning strategy does not pencil out. That should not be a surprise.
I don’t care one way or another about whether Everett annexes. I do care about the reasons Everett is reluctant to move forward with annexation. It is all about the money.
Over the years, cities have been accused of “cherry picking” commercial properties in annexations because they represented a revenue stream for the city taking them in. In some cases the resulting criticism has been that they left the existing residential areas out because they represented a financial liability.
There is no doubt they are both true. My question would be “Why is the county planning and permitting urban subdivisions in unincorporated areas?” It would seem to me that cities would be better able to gauge the need and the corresponding ability to render services.
In rural counties, cities drive development because they provide the services. The character of development is clearly different comparing areas with services to areas without services. In this case services are water and sewer. Development emanates from the central service provider to neighborhoods on the fringe. More dense residential and commercial development in the city is contrasted to less of both across the city line.
The availability of water is the first major obstacle to development. In most cases, drinking water is available to most areas through public water providers. In unincorporated areas water districts do the job.
With sewers, the situation is a little more difficult. Traditionally, septic systems with drain fields provided the means for residential development inside and outside of cities. When lots are large, this is a workable technology. As residential lots have gotten smaller, the need for public sewer systems has increased. The same is true with businesses. When a mom and pop business opened, it could function on a septic and drain field. As businesses got bigger, they also needed public sewers.
Today we can still find business enterprises in rural non-sewered areas, but they have significant land allocated for drain fields. Drain field technologies enable some larger businesses to exist in areas not served by sewers, but more often than not, they are too expensive.
As cities do their comprehensive planning, they address all the needs of a city as they proceed. They recognize that residential development creates burdens on all the utilities, the police, the fire and the schools. At one time, property tax revenue was a reliable source of government funding. We used to have the ability to raise revenue by as much as 6% per year. When the 6% was reduced to 1%, residential development became a liability. The change was good for tax payers; it wasn’t good for service providers.
In order to offset the liability of residential neighborhoods, comprehensive plans need revenue producing land uses that do not create undue burdens on municipal services. If you want to characterize them as cherries, that works for me. Planners need to be mindful of long term financial needs of the greater community when they do their work.
Snohomish County paid little attention to long term needs of the area when they adopted the plan for Silver Firs and the properties east of the Bothell-Everett Highway. Until just recently, there were no businesses east of 35th Ave SE. I don’t know how many homes have been built in the thousands of acres east of Everett and Mill Creek, but if there are only six to the acre, there are about ten thousand homes built outside anyone’s Urban Growth Area.
There is probably a standard that suggests how much General Commercial area a city needs for every hundred acres of residential, but I don’t know what it is. Whatever that number might be, the area east of Everett and Mill Creek is definitely short.
If all those homes represent a liability, why would either city annex the land? Then if you take into consideration the shortage of vacant land suitable for commercial development you can see there are problems for much of that area.
Snohomish County will tell you that they are the one government agency with the expertise to do “Comprehensive Planning” because they have the resources to do the job right. There is no doubt they had the resources, but they didn’t have the long term view of the area in mind when they “planned” for the area.
If they had considered the long term needs of the community when they developed the area, it might make sense for either Everett or Mill Creek to take on the residential liability along with the commercial benefit. With Snohomish County, “long term planning” is a misnomer.
The potential Everett annexation is/was huge, but the remaining urban development that already exists but not included in the current consideration is the really big gorilla. What sense will there be for any city to take on that area?
Mukilteo faces the same issue in their recent declaration to annex south to Norma Beach Road. Is there enough of an asset to take on the liability?
Lake Stevens faces a similar dilemma around Frontier Village. How will the city pay for services in a huge geographic area with limited ability to expand commercial? Why would they take on responsibility for residential areas as far away as Calvalero’s Corner without the ability to pay for them with some form of commercial revenue stream?
For Snohomish County, selling building permits was the short term revenue source they needed to cover their budget. Approving plats and collecting fees was their motivation. As far as I can tell, it has always been about getting the money before a city. If they were really concerned about the long term health of the area they would have been doing joint planning with the cities to make sure there was continuity with other local plans. That didn’t happen. They just picked the cherries.
So many negative images come to mind when I think about how painful it will be to fix all that damage. There needs to be some incentive for cities to take on these unfunded liabilities, but there don’t seem to be too many on the horizon.
If you think that we can just go on without addressing this issue just wait until the new roads need to be repaired or the residents ask about other urban services.
I am open to suggestions.
Posted in Snohomish County Political Commentary | 1 Comment »