Bonney Lake’s annexation of the area south of city limits might be on hold for the year as the city moves toward a confrontation with Pierce County over bringing the area into the city.

The county on Monday moved to request a review from the Boundary Review Board as a way to slow the process and pursue a Joint Planning Agreement with the city over the areas in question.

“The intention is for the county to invoke jurisdiction today,” County Spokesman Hunter George said Monday, using the technical term for the county’s action.

In a Jan. 7 letter to Mayor Neil Johnson, County Executive Pat McCarthy said she believes an agreement can be reached well before the 120-day deadline of May 10 that should allow the city to put the measure on the ballot this spring.

City and county officials first met Jan. 3 to discuss why the annexation has not yet been approved despite being passed by the Bonney Lake City Council in August.

According to a report from City Administrator Don Morrison, the delay is “almost exclusively related” to the area known as Plateau 465, a swath of undeveloped land at the southern end of the annexation area.

Bonney Lake councilmembers in July cited the large, undeveloped parcel as a primary reason for annexing the area, with Deputy Mayor Dan Swatman calling the development the “plum” of the area whose development would help pay for the services the city would need to bring to the other parts of the annexation area.

Morrison said county officials told the city they want Bonney Lake to withdraw its annexation application in favor of working out a pre-annexation deal with the county that would essentially turn over to the county more than $7.5 million in cash as well as traffic and parks impact fees, part of an agreement the developer, Investco, struck with the county during the approval process.

Morrison said last week he did not expect the vote to go through this year because of the delay.

“Unless there was a deal struck this week … it would be nearly impossible to have an election this year,” he said.

Morrison said the implication from the county was that the city would agree to the same stipulations as Investco, collect the money and then ship it off to the county.

With that, Swatman laughed out loud.

“Yeah, we tried to keep a straight face when they said that,” Morrison said.

Morrison estimated that traffic impact fees from Plateau 465, presuming a full build-out, would total near $12 million while park impact fees are estimated at $8.8 million, money the city would count on to help bring city services to the annexation area.

Swatman said the county was “stalling” and was trying to milk what they perceived as a “cash cow” and take that money off of the Plateau.

According to Morrison, the county collects approximately $800,000 in taxes from the annexation area and only spends about $400,000 in the same region.

George said the disagreement between the county and city was “Not as simple as money.”

“A lot could go wrong here if we don’t do it right,” he said.

After a brief discussion, the city council decided to not pull their application and instead force a hearing at the Boundary Review Board, which would force the county to lay out its legal argument as to why these areas should not be part of the city of Bonney Lake.

Swatman said they have all their cards and are not showing them to us. If it goes to the Boundary Review Board they will have to play those cards.

Mayor Johnson agreed with Swatman and also questioned the effectiveness of the Growth Management Act if counties do not allow cities to annex urban areas.

“I think we’re going to have to push this forward and have them lay it all out,” Johnson said. “I don’t understand how they are going to tell us we can’t go out and service this area.”

In a Jan. 5 letter to the county, Johnson repeated his belief about the city being better able to serve the area, and said the council authorized him to pledge that all transportation impact fees from the area wil be used on projects in the area, promise the city will assume responsibility for the streets and sewers with no preconditions, spend all park impact fees collected from the area within the annexation area, and cooperate with the county and future owners of Cascadia in development of that project .

According to the letter from the county, which does not mention any financial concerns, the Joint Planning Agreement being sought by the county should contain the following four “general concepts:”

• A process to ensure infrastructure and services that are neither duplicative or place undue financial burden on the part of the property owners and residents of the non-impacting community;

• A mechanism whereby the impacts of development in proposed future annexation areas to the county transportation network are carefully analyzed and coordinated;

• Ensure environmental stewardship through continuity of preservation and regulatory consistency in areas of future annexation or mutual concern; and

• Coordination and compatibility between comprehensive plans in future annexed areas to ensure appropriate, compatible land uses and neighborhood preservation.

George said he believed an agreement could be worked out.

“We certainly understand the city’s interest in this and we want to see it succeed,” he said. “We need them to come to the table.”

To comment on this story view it online at www.blscourierherald.