Court lets city annex land

Spokane County suffered a major setback Thursday in its legal fight to keep the city of Spokane from annexing 135 acres of commercial land on North Division Street – land that generates nearly $1 million a year in taxes.

Superior Court Judge Maryann Moreno ruled that landowner agreements not to oppose annexation in exchange for city water and sewer service are enforceable.

Those agreements allow the city to annex the land without a vote of residents.

State law allows annexation without a vote if a city is petitioned by owners of 75 percent of the assessed value in the affected area. Agreements not to oppose annexation count toward the percentage.

In this case, the city has the support or acquiescence of owners of 76.9 percent of the commercial area on the west side of Division Street, north of Francis Avenue.

Details of Moreno’s oral ruling in chambers weren’t immediately available.

The county had argued, in part, that the city wasn’t entitled to require the North Division property owners to sign annexation covenants because the city offered to supply water to the area and, after the withdrawal of Spokane Suburban Water Co., was the “exclusive supplier.”

The city ridiculed that argument as threadbare.

“Naturally we’re very pleased with Judge Moreno’s ruling and we believe it was the right result,” Assistant City Attorney James Richman said Thursday.

“This wasn’t a surprise to us in the least,” said John Pilcher, the city’s chief operating officer. “It just reaffirms the principles of growth management.”

Mayor Dennis Hession and other city officials have cited the state Growth Management Act, which says urban services are best provided by cities. The city will continue to examine areas for annexation, Pilcher said.

County Commissioner Mark Richard objected that the Growth Management Act doesn’t say, “Thou shalt go out and cherry pick business districts to balance your budget.”

County officials took some satisfaction in the fact that Moreno ruled they have legal standing to challenge annexations in court.

“Just like the ruling, my reaction is mixed,” Richard said.

He said he was “very pleased” that “we do have a right to step in and challenge these annexations if we can’t get some kind of a long-term agreement” with the city of Spokane. But he said county officials disagree with the rest of Moreno’s ruling and will consider an appeal.

Meanwhile, a separate county lawsuit challenging the state-created Boundary Review Board’s approval of the North Division annexation is proceeding before Superior Court Judge Kathleen O’Connor. No trial date has been set in that case.

“We are trying to be good neighbors, and I don’t think we are diabolically opposed to annexation,” Richard said. “But the notion that the city can balance its budget on our backs is not good policy.”

Pilcher denied the annexation is financially motivated.

City and county leaders have been discussing ways to resolve annexation issues amicably, but Richard said the county has gotten “very little traction” in the talks.

There hasn’t been adequate consideration of the county’s obligation to provide vital services, such as juvenile justice, to residents throughout the county, “including the city’s own citizens,” Richard said.

“Nobody can absorb a million-dollar deficit on their budget on an annual basis without it having an effect on their ability to provide services,” he said.