Bart Hansen, a councilor with the city of Vancouver, and Michelle Belkot, a councilor with Clark County, give their thoughts on the city’s proposals to annex parts of unincorporated Clark County

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

Annexation. 

For some, it is a bad word.

For others, it is the future.

If annexation is, indeed, the future, how big of a piece of land should the city of Vancouver add from areas in unincorporated Clark County?

The city and the county have started discussions on the potential for annexation. The city has delivered four options to the county. Under three of the options, Vancouver would become the second largest city in the state in terms of population.

Clark County Today reached out to a city councilor and a county councilor, to get their initial views on the proposals.

“I am not in a race to become the second largest city in the state of Washington,” said Bart Hansen of the Vancouver City Council.

However, he is agreeable to slow change, at the smaller “strategic” proposal — an area north of State Route 500 to Padden Parkway, which would add roughly 1,700 residents to Vancouver.

“This is the beginning of the process,” Hansen said. “I have zero desire to become the second-largest city in the state of Washington. What I do have a desire to do is enhance the services of the citizens living in an urban setting.”

Michelle Belkot of the County Council said she is not in favor of any annexation, but did agree that if annexation is to happen, it should come at the smallest of the four proposals.

“There is something to be said for what Bart said,” Belkot said, noting, for example, that many of the Clark County Sheriff’s Office calls are in the Orchards area — where the smaller annexation proposal would include. “Orchards, Five Corners, is a more urban area. It would make sense. It does align with the city.”

Belkot emphasized, however, that many, many residents in unincorporated areas do not want to fall under the umbrella of the city.

“I have received hundreds of emails that do not want to have anything to do with being part of the city of Vancouver,” Belkot said.

Belkot is encouraging all affected residents to voice their opinions to their government leaders. This is the time, after all, when things are still being discussed.

And residents do have time.

“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.

The four scenarios for annexation:

• Fire District 5 up to the Urban Growth Area: This would impact 95,000 residents.
• Water Service Boundary: Areas of the unincorporated county using the city’s water service. This would impact 76,000 residents.
• Vancouver Urban Growth Area: The largest of the proposals, which would affect 171,000 residents.
• North of SR 500 to Padden Parkway: The smallest of the proposals, affecting 1,700 residents.

Money is always a factor, and both Hansen and Belkot are concerned about the dollars. 

“It is going to be a costly endeavor for the city,” Hansen said. 

Tough decisions will have to be made. 

“We do need to annex some of these areas because they are urban. We don’t need to cause financial hardships in both organizations that is going to result in less services to the rest of the county,” Hansen said.

“I support having conversations but not about annexations when both the county and the city are in significant budget deficits,” Belkot said. “You have to have money to do annexation. Neither the city nor the county have the money.”

Hansen wants to proceed … but with an abundance of caution. He wondered, for example, if the city annexes the entire Urban Growth Area and is already in a budget shortfall, what will it mean to have tens of millions in excess costs. 

“It’s going to come out in two ways. Either you don’t pay for it or you reduce your services,” Hansen said. “That’s not something I’m looking forward to providing our newly annexed citizens.

“I don’t want to be on a stage where we annex all of this area only to find out we are $60 million short, and it’s going to come from somewhere.”

Hansen concluded with a question:

“Are you going to be better off as a citizen of an area annexed?”

From many who have contacted Belkot, that answer is no. 

It seems to her that many in the city want to be known as the second-biggest city in the state.

“It ticks off a lot of people. We don’t want to be that big,” Belkot said.

She said her district would be impacted the most by annexation. She noted her constituents have told her that they do not agree with how the city has handled its homeless crisis, and they fear those costs would be pushed on to them. They also do not care for the city trying to force people out of their cars with the city’s Complete Streets campaign. 

She said some of her constituents are terrified at the idea of living under city leadership. 

“They can barely afford the taxes they are already paying,” Belkot said.

“The city sees the county as a cash cow that will allow them to bring in more state money,” Belkot said. “They also seek to collect a larger share of the sales tax pie.”

Then there are major differences between the county and the city in terms of permitting.

“It is a pain in the rear end to get things done in the city,” Belkot said. 

Belkot and Hansen agree that residents should speak up now, in the early stages of the proposals.

If you live in one of the proposed annexed areas, will you be better off as an official resident of the city of Vancouver?

“People need to have their voices heard,” Belkot said.