Boundary Board Wants More Time To Study City Of Evergreen Borders

The city of Evergreen’s march to the ballot stalled Thursday when a state board decided it needed more time to look at the proposed boundaries.

Boundary Review Board members said they needed at least one more meeting to finalize the borders of the proposed city in the eastern Spokane Valley.

The decision came after some residents asked to be included in the city, one woman asked to be left out and Evergreen proponents requested that two county parks be added to their proposal.

“I need some time to consider all these modifications,” board member Annemarie Wiser said.

The board’s decision to continue the public hearing until March 11 worried some supporters of the proposed city, which would be home to about 14,000 people.

Evergreen is now roughly bounded by Evergreen and Barker roads, the Spokane River and 24th Avenue.

Some supporters believe the delay may hurt their chances of getting the proposal on the May 21 ballot.

“Phooey,” said Vivienne Latimer, the city’s chief proponent. “I really want the May 21 election. I hope this doesn’t mess that up.”

The review board must sign off on the final boundaries by March 22 in order for Evergreen to qualify for the special election in May.

Members didn’t seem to think that would be a problem, although they’ll have some tough decision to make.

One will be whether or not to include a neighborhood just outside the northeast borders of the proposal.

Loyd Petersen requested that the area, north and east of Barker and Mission, be included in the city.

Petersen, who lives in the area, said the neighborhood of mobile homes and newly built houses would add several million dollars in assessed value to proposed city.

“It is urban, and it seems to me it would fit nicely in the city,” said Petersen, a long-time advocate of Valley incorporation. “We want to be inside a city.”

Another woman wants her neighborhood left out.

Janeen Thompson wrote a letter to the board asking that a large chunk of land between Barker and Flora roads be excluded from Evergreen.

Thompson said in the letter that territory is part of the Greenacres community to the east and should remain so. Putting it into Evergreen will destroy the neighborhood, she wrote.

Sue Delucchi, an Evergreen proponent, asked the board to make every effort to include Terrace View Park within Evergreen.

Delucchi said it was “an absolute travesty” that there were currently no parks within the 8-square-mile borders.

Other supporters asked the board to include Sullivan Park inside Evergreen as well.

Aside from the boundary discussions, most of the people who testified at Thursday’s meeting supported forming the city.

Arne Woodard said a new city would allow residents to retain tax dollars in their community and give them a chance to draft land-use policies that would let them maintain a large-lot lifestyle.

“We want to keep the green in Evergreen,” Woodard said.

He went on to say that people who opposed the formation of the city were idiots.

“But I know we don’t have any idiots in Evergreen,” he said. “The issues are far too clear.”

They were a little blurry to Richard Chrisman, the sole dissenter Thursday.

Chrisman said a new city would be another layer of government and likely cost him more.

“I think it’ll be double government,” said Chrisman, adding that three defeats of incorporation should tell city proponents something. “I don’t know how many times the Valley people like myself have to say no.”

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: Hearing continues The state Boundary Review Board will continue its public hearing on the proposed city of Evergreen on March 11. That meeting begins at 3:30 p.m. in the downstairs meeting room of the county public works building, 1026 W. Broadway.