News - Local News - Growth

POSTED: Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2008

City Council backs annexation plan

Property owners must approve proposal

BELLINGHAM — City leaders endorsed a plan that would pull thousands of residents living west of Bellingham into city limits and spur tax- and job-producing industrial and commercial development.

It could take until mid-2011 before the entire unincorporated urban growth area could be annexed, but on Monday, July 21, City Council members gave an initial thumbs up to the plan.

Annexing the land west of Interstate 5 and between city limits and Bellingham International Airport would give now-vacant properties access to city utilities, enabling commercial and industrial development, which would boost revenue to city coffers and bring new jobs, according to a staff report.

But the plan still needs property owners’ support, and one major one, the Port of Bellingham, which owns the airport and nearby industrial land. The port is resisting agreements binding it to supporting coming into city limits until specific issues with the city are worked out.

More than 600 housing units already exist there, much of it along Bennett Drive and West Alderwood Avenue, and land-use rules would allow only approximately 60 more. But another 976,000 square feet of retail, office and industrial/warehouse space could be added to the 1.31 million square feet already there, the projection shows. To compare, Bellingham’s Wal-Mart is less than 160,000 square feet. Over the next 15 years, businesses would generate nearly $11.8 million for the city in sales and business and occupation taxes alone.

Annexation would allow the city to pursue with the state Department of Transportation improvements to the already congested West Bakerview Road-Interstate 5 crossing, work estimated at roughly $30 million.

“Since the county does not often spend their limited road construction dollars on projects in city (urban growth areas), it is unlikely that the project will get built in the foreseeable future if the area is not annexed,” according to a staff report, by planner Greg Aucutt. Over the next 15 years, development would yield the city nearly $6.2 million in traffic impact fees, which the county doesn’t currently collect.

The council voted 6-0, with council member Louise Bjornson absent, to have staff talk with property owners about annexation, hoping owners of at least 75 percent of the area’s assessed value would then petition the council for inclusion.

City staff will discuss with Whatcom County Fire District No. 8, softening what could be a potential loss of $340,000 a year in property tax revenue. The area represents 42 percent of the district’s income from property taxes.

The council vote came after a report by consultant Perteet Engineering studying the possibility of annexing nearly 3,000 acres of urban growth area west of the city and Interstate 5, including the airport property. The council decided against trying to annex the airport itself, which would require hiring 13 more firefighters and seven police officers.

Pulling roughly 3,000 residents into city limits would mean they help pay for the city streets, parks services and library they’re already using, the staff report states. Still, it would mean lower property taxes, reduced sewer and water costs and better police and fire services for them, the report states.

One Bennett Drive resident, Diana Jonas, likes the idea. She owns a second property along Bennett Drive where she used to rent out a house, until a fire destroyed it. Water service stopped for more than three years, and city policy forbids turning it on again until it’s annexed.

She’s left paying taxes on a property she can’t use, she said. She also wants the ability to water fruit trees there.

“I want my property to be water accessible so I can have apple pie, apple jelly,” she said. “And I want to put a place there so that I can have some income.

“If they annex the property into the city, which I think would be a real good idea, then there would be no more hassle.”