<< Previous   of   Next >>

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTACT THE ENTERPRISE Jocelyn Robinson, News editor jrobinson@heraldnet.com

Lynnwood’s annexation plans OK’d

Mill Creek officials ‘disappointed’ with Superior Court’s ruling

By Katie Murdoch
Enterprise editor

Mill Creek city officials are determining their next step after a Superior Court ruling released last week squashed their attempts to cease Lynnwood’s annexation plans.

The Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County affirmed the Boundary Review Board of Snohomish County’s 2009 ruling in favor of Lynnwood.

Mill Creek received word of the Superior Court’s ruling Jan. 28.

The letter said there was sufficient evidence “to convince a fair-minded person” that the original decision was sound.

Mill Creek has 30 days to appeal the Superior Court’s ruling to the state appellate court after Lynnwood files a written order in court. City staff are consulting their attorney.

Mill Creek city manager Timothy Burns said the city is “disappointed” with the ruling.

Mill Creek contended the area off 164th Street Southwest from Larch Way to I-5 is better served as a boundary for Mill Creek.

“I-5 is the natural boundary to our city,” Burns said.

The contested area includes less than 600 acres east of I-5, south of 164th Street Southwest and north and west of Larch Way. Less than 3,000 residents are in that area. Lynnwood wants to annex a total of 3,690 acres of unincorporated Snohomish County, which includes the contested area. The 3,690 acres includes neighborhoods east of I-5, north of Larch Way and south of 148th Street Southwest. The total annexation plan would add approximately 27,000 new residents, bringing Lynnwood’s population to more than 60,000.

The city would need a majority vote in favor of annexing from voters living within the proposed area.

Mill Creek has no immediate plans to annex, but the swath of land is on the city’s long-term radar, Burns said. “The decision lasts forever.”

Mill Creek Mayor Mike Todd said the cities had different visions for the land that overlaps them, but Lynnwood has been more aggressive than Mill Creek.

“Mill Creek is not at that point in the city’s growth to immediately jump in and start grabbing for land,” Todd said.

Last spring the Boundary Review Board ruled in favor of Lynnwood’s annexation ambitions. Mill Creek officials stalled those plans by filing a lawsuit the following summer in Superior Court, alleging the board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and violated the state’s appearance of fairness doctrine.

Without an appeal, the issue will be presented to the Lynnwood City Council for scheduling an annexation vote, as early as the November ballot.

“All the years of effort and litigation have all been done to put the issue in front of the voters, who have the final say,” said Paul Krauss, community development director for Lynnwood.

Reporters Oscar Halpert and Mina Williams contributed to this report.