Camas resident Anna Miller takes a deeper dive into the idea of annexation
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
ClarkCountyToday.com recently wrote a “shout-out” piece letting us know that talks are beginning between the Clark County Council and the Vancouver City Council about annexation. Two councilors were quoted in the article. According to the CCT article, Vancouver City Councilor Bart Hansen is agreeable to slow change, at the smaller strategic proposal such as an area north of State Route 500 to Padden Parkway, which would add roughly 1,700 residents to Vancouver. Clark County Council Member Michelle Belkot had this to say, “I have received hundreds of emails that do not want to have anything to do with being part of the city of Vancouver.” Belkot emphasized that annexation should not proceed while both governments face budget deficits.
But I’m a curious cat and the devil is in the details. The article went on to say that some people hate the idea of annexation and some people don’t mind it. Personally, my visceral reaction to the city of Vancouver expanding its reach is that I don’t like it.
But why? I wanted to know why the city might want to take a bite out of land now under the jurisdiction of the County. Let’s look.
Cities incur new expenses when they take on roads, policing, utilities, and more. To justify those costs, they look at property tax revenue. New residents and businesses add to the city’s assessed valuation, sales tax revenue and even with the city’s tax rate, that can yield a net gain if the land’s value is high enough.
Incorporating retail corridors or commercial centers brings sales taxes directly into the city treasury rather than the counties. Then there are utility and service fees; water, sewer, stormwater, trash and other use-fee programs that can accompany the annexation. These ongoing fees can offset the cost of extending infrastructure. There are also development impact fees.
When developers build in the newly annexed area, one-time fees for parks, roads and schools can help recoup initial outlays before residents even move in.
Yes, and more control. Bingo! This triggers me. Annexation gives a city control over zoning, subdivision requirements, and building standards. Some think this is a good thing because we don’t want our county to allow building willy-nilly on unincorporated land! A bigger city can wield more influence with regional planning bodies and economic development partnerships often favor cities over counties.
Personally, I’ll take my chances with the Clark County Council over the city of Vancouver.
More Money. Many grant programs and matching-fund opportunities are population- or jurisdiction-specific. Boosting your city’s population and land area can qualify you for larger transportation, housing, or community development grants and increase per-capita allocations of block grants. Those funds can cover a portion of road improvements, parks, or public safety facilities.
To sum it up, a well-executed annexation generates immediate fee revenue, delivers ongoing property, sales, and utility revenue, unlocks external funding and political advantages and some believe enables cohesive planning and land-use management.
From the CCT article, “Annexations of any significant size are complex and require careful and intentional planning and collaboration, and a multi-year process,” according to the city’s proposal shared with the county last week.
Well, you know I’m skeptical, but hopefully this gives you a bit more information to make an informed decision on which to base your own opinion. Even though annexation can be long term planning, Council Member Michelle Belkot suggested that citizens make their opinions known now. You can e-mail the councilors here: Clark County Council | Clark County
Anna Miller
Camas
Also read:
- Opinion: Hard work is being done to try to trade one bad health care system for another
Elizabeth New (Hovde) cautions that efforts to create a universal, taxpayer-financed health care system in Washington risk replacing existing problems with new challenges tied to cost, access, and centralized control. - Opinion: The progressive attack on Washington’s sheriffs
Nancy Churchill argues that proposed legislation would shift power over county sheriffs away from voters and concentrate control within state government. - Letter: Is Secretary of State Hobbs really JUST protecting your voter information?
Camas resident Rick Vermeers questions the Washington secretary of state’s refusal to provide voter roll data to the U.S. Department of Justice and raises concerns about voter list transparency and compliance with federal law. - Opinion: In search of joy at Vancouver Mall during Christmas time
Paul Valencia reflects on his annual Christmas-time visit to Vancouver Mall, finding nostalgia, people-watching, and moments of joy amid last-minute holiday shopping. - Opinion: Atmospheric River events mean even less clearance for vessels crossing under the proposed Interstate Bridge Plan
Neighbors for a Better Crossing argues that high river levels from atmospheric river events further reduce vessel clearance under the proposed Interstate Bridge design, creating long-term navigation risks on the Columbia River.
wpDiscuz
