Grant County, Moses Lake fail to agree

Lawsuit still possible

EPHRATA - The Moses Lake City Council and the Grant County Board of Commissioners met at county courthouse to discuss the Revenue Sharing Agreement contract and proposed lawsuit.

The two entities failed to reach a solution during a special meeting Thursday afternoon.

The council sent a letter of demands to the board in mid-August requesting more than $733,200 in reimbursements or the disbandment of the Boundary Review Board.

"All challenges to the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations were resolved by Aug. 7, 2006, and the Revenue Sharing Agreement states the county will initiate the process of disbanding the Boundary Review Board within one year of completion and adoption of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations with the time beginning at the conclusion of any challenges to the comprehensive plan or implementing regulations," according to a letter sent to the county by the city.

The city and county appeared to agree litigation between the two entities would not be in the best interest of citizens.

Commissioner LeRoy Allison agreed there were no more formal appeals to the comprehensive plan as of Aug. 7, 2006.

In 1999, problems with the Boundary Review Board were recognized regarding personalities who served the board, Mayor Ron Covey said. He claims the review board was making it difficult for properties to be annexed into the city.

Councilmember Richard Pearce said the city sent a letter to the commissioners in September 2006, reminding them there were no outstanding challenges and another letter was sent in July 2007, reminding them the deadline was approaching.

He said he doesn't understand why the commissioners are surprised by the demands.

"We tried to warn you," Pearce said. "You had that year to do it and you did nothing about it."

"I believe Moses Lake is jumping the gun on this situation," Allison said.

He said the implementation of the plan remains an issue.

Covey said implementation is not an issue and not part of the contract as it can take 20 years to implement.

Allison said there are issues facing the comprehensive plan. The county is operating on interim regulations.

"We still haven't found a solution in terms of how to implement," he said.

The comp plan requires the county have joint development regulations with the city for the Urban Growth Area, Allison said. It wasn't achieved.

The joint regulations serve as a compromise between the city and the county concerning how developers develop property. The comprehensive plan falls back to building to county standards instead of city standards because there is no agreement, he said. The city requires developers to build sidewalks, curbing, gutters and street lights.

"It's been on your agenda several times," Allison said.

There is a discrepancy between who pays for the roads when properties are annexed, Allison said. The council is only looking at parts of the agreement, he said.

"Once those are solved, then the clock will start," Allison added.

Covey said it was the county's request not to annex certain properties along Frontage Road between two dealership properties.

"That was not our request," Allison said.

Covey retracted what he said because it was the Boundary Review Board who made the request.

A jurisdictional transfer for the un-annexed properties was sent to the city with no response, Allison said.

"That is correct," Covey said.

City Manager Joe Gavinski said the decision is depending on the completion of the REC Solar Grade Silicon annexation.

The mayor said he thought developments within the Urban Growth Area would be built to city standards with regard to the joint development regulations because the properties within the Urban Growth Area are to annexed eventually. Instead the county is allowing development to county standards.

"We're having to reinvent the wheel because it is different than any other Growth Management Act we see throughout the state," he said. "We feel they should be to city standards because that's the intent."

The entities continued to discuss the wording of the contract.

Allison said the plan and the implementing regulations are adopted but there are still appeals against it.

"This doesn't address appeals," Pearce said about the contract.

"If a piece of the plan is being questioned," Allison began.

"That's not an issue," Pearce interrupted.

Grant Count legal counsel representative Steve Hallstrom said the contract is vague. He said it is an issue because neither party can agree what the agreement was.

Allison said the one year time limit should start when there are no more challenges to the plan.

Pearce asked if the county is considering terminating the Boundary Review Board.

"We bargained in good faith that was going to happen," he said.

"(The comp plan) needs to be adopted, implemented and working," Allison said.

Allison questioned why the city wants to get rid of the Boundary Review Board.

"They are a stumbling block," Pearce said. "The Boundary Review Board has been a thorn in the rear for years."

He questioned what the value of the review board is to the county.

Allison said the Boundary Review Board reviews properties to be annexed into the city to make sure it is done properly and according to the right guidelines. He said the board catches inadequacies ranging from whether the development is contiguous and if the properties don't match up on a map.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," Covey said.

He said the county can't keep the money and the Boundary Review Board at the same time.

Commissioner Richard Stevens said the disbanding of the review board began. He said a public hearing on the issue was set for today in the county meeting room.

The public hearing should have been earlier, Covey said.

Stevens said the hearing is less than one month after the deadline imposed by the city.

Commissioner Cindy Carter said the county was required to advertise the hearing for a certain amount of days before hosting the hearing.

"The clock hasn't started," Allison said.

"We feel it has," Covey said.

He said although it is petty, the city should be compensated for the traffic on the city roadways leading to the fairgrounds.

Stevens said he feels confused over the original intent of the 1999 agreement because he was not a commissioner when the agreement was created.

Allison, Pearce and Covey are the only officials who were in elected office when the Revenue Sharing Agreement was enacted.

"Why are they so adamant against the Boundary Review Board?," Allison questioned after the meeting. "I didn't hear anything other than it caused them trouble."