In the latest in a series of territorial disputes between the city of Spokane and Spokane County, the city says it plans to challenge a decision the county commissioners made recently regarding land just north of Spokane and on the West Plains that the city hopes to annex eventually.


Earlier this month, the commissioners designated two unincorporated pieces of land with a total of 13,500 acres adjacent to the city as joint planning areas, which paves the way for the city and county to collaborate on urban planning to ensure a smooth transition if and when annexation of those areas occurs. Spokane Mayor Dennis Hession contends the county didnt make those joint planning areas large enough, and thus violated the spirit of the 16-year-old state Growth Management Act as well as a settlement the city and county reached nearly three years ago.


The commissioners decision is significant because its the latest step in a five-year-long process that ultimately will determine the citys ability to expand its borders. While the city wants a total of nearly 50,000 acres of land for joint planning purposes, the county commissioners have designated only about 30,600 acres of that land for joint planning.


Are (the countys) designations consistent with the Growth Management Act and the findings of the (Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings) Board with regard to urban growth areas around the city of Spokane? Hession says. Our answer is no to both.


The commissioners issued their decision orally and expect to release a written decision within the next few weeks. After that, the city has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Growth Management Hearings Board, which oversees Growth Management Act-related land-use decisions in Eastern Washington, Hession says. The city plans to file an appeal as soon as possible, he says.


Its an important decision for us as we grow, he says. We feel that the growth hearings board has ruled consistently with our appeals in the past and are confident theyll do so again.


Under the Growth Management Act, boundaries are established to identify unincorporated areas that already are urban or areas that county planners expect will become urban, where public services can be extended easily. When an urban growth area or part of one is designated for joint planning, it means county planners will work with city representatives to prepare development policies and infrastructure plans for that area.


The citys first big skirmish with the county came in 2002, when it complained to the Growth Management Hearings Board that the county was blocking its growth by assigning an urban growth area boundary along its existing boundary lines, says John Pederson, Spokane Countys assistant director of building and planning. The county had drawn the boundary in 2001 as part of an update of its comprehensive land-use plan required under the state Growth Management Act, Pederson says.


In July 2002, the growth hearings board found the countys action had violated the Growth Management Act. The city and county then entered into mediation, which led to a settlement in July 2003. Under those terms, the two entities agreed to refer to certain unincorporated areas outside the city limits as joint planning areas, pending follow-up public hearings conducted by the county commissioners, he says. Those areas are located next to current city boundaries in the Hillyard, Shawnee, Seven Mile, Riverside, Upriver, and Indian Canyon neighborhoods, and also on Moran and Glenrose prairies, and on the West Plains.


The parties didnt reach an agreement about Alcott, an area near Spokane Valley, or the North Metro area, which includes Linwood, Gleneden, and parts of Mead. Instead, they agreed to resolve the remaining areas of dispute after the city presented its position to the commissioners during subsequent public hearings.


The county commissioners decided last month to designate as joint planning areas nearly all of the land that was included in the original settlement, as well as the roughly 470-acre Alcott area, Pederson says. They didnt, however, include the West Plains or North Metro area in their decision.


In their ruling earlier this month regarding those areas, the county retained sole control of sizable chunks of land. The portion of the nearly 11,000-acre North Metro area it carved out as a joint planning area includes about 1,500 acres east of U.S. 2 and north of Francis Avenue at the northeast corner of the city. That leaves the lions share of North Metro, including a peninsula of land north of Francis and west of Division Street thats surrounded on three sides by the city, as the countys urban growth area.


The West Plains area that the county designated for joint planning with the city of Spokane includes roughly 12,000 acres east and south of the city of Airway Heights and on either side of Interstate 90. It doesnt include, however, about 650 acres designated as the countys urban growth area thats just east of the city of Airway Heights and on either side of U.S. 2land that the city of Spokane claims was part of the settlement agreement.


The board didnt feel ready to make a decision on all of those areas, he says.


The city of Spokane believes the county commissioners need to comply with the terms of the original settlement so the two parties can move on and begin the joint planning process, Hession says.


Although the city doesnt provide services such as water and sewer to the contested West Plains area, it does already provide some of those services to the disputed portions of the North Metro area, Hession says. The city likely will place a high priority on annexing both of the areas in the near future, he says.


We believe that were better able to provide services in the areas in which we grow in a manner thats consistent with the urban environment residents are living in now, he says.


Hession declines to speculate on reasons for the countys reluctance to designate some areas surrounding the city for joint planning. He notes, though, that some of the areas under consideration are highly commercialized and generate a substantial amount of tax revenue.


All other arguments aside, Hession says, the underlying reason for the current joint planning area controversy between the city and the county is that the entities disagree fundamentally about the spirit of the Growth Management Act. The act is designed to prevent urban sprawl in areas that are rural, and to allow cities to grow into urban areas that lie adjacent to their borders, he says. Although the county does have urban areas, its the citys job to foster urban growth, he asserts.


I dont believe were going to agree in terms of the larger picture of urban development, he says, but adds that its important for the current joint planning dispute to be resolved quickly.


In the meantime, were going to be positioning ourselves to get this done as soon as possible, Hession says. They need to move on and so do we.


Contact Emily Brandler at (509) 344-1265 or via e-mail at [email protected].