The City of Winlock’s 20-year vision of expansion toward Interstate 5 currently rests in the hands of a four-person, independent board.
Attendees could hardly question that the board is, in fact, independent: When Mayor Brandon Svenson addressed the board, its chairperson, Donna Moir asked, “And you are?”
Winlock’s urban growth area, a boundary where cities map out plans for growth over the following decades, is 1,355 acres and, as of a count in 2022, had 335 residents. When the city voted to “annex” the growth area despite outcry from a handful of residents, a petition began circulating.
Some residents didn’t want to live in the city limits, citing concerns over utilities and services that could change, such as a switch from the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office to the Winlock Police Department.
The petition needed more than 5% of the urban growth area’s registered voters to pen their signatures. With a total of 228 registered voters in the boundary and 65 signatures, including 54 registered voters, or 23%, the petition soared past that requirement.
The petition invoked the Washington State Boundary Review Board of Lewis County, which has representatives from the governor, county and cities. Winlock twice tried to take court action claiming the board had no authority over the urban growth area annexation, which was twice struck down by Lewis County judges.
So, on Thursday night, the board listened to concerns from residents, city officials, the city’s lawyers and consultant, county government officials, and people who, despite not living in the growth area, are opposed to the annexation. The meeting lasted from 7 p.m. until a few minutes before 10 p.m., and, after more than 10 minutes debating whether or not to continue the meeting well into the night or to recess until the following day, the board chose the latter option.
The board was scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. on Friday night, which is after The Chronicle’s afternoon press deadline. At the meeting, they were scheduled to deliberate about the annexation and schedule a third meeting for their final vote.
Because of timelines set by state law, the board has to complete this process before Tuesday, Aug. 8.
More than half a dozen residents either spoke in opposition to the expansion or yielded their hearing time to another person who spoke against it. Most were concerned that the city wouldn’t be able to increase utilities and services, such as law enforcement, sewage and water, at an appropriate scale.
One resident, Eric Bernard, who does not live within the growth area, has been the most vocal staunch opponent to the annexation since the city first held hearings on the matter. He claimed the city employees did not have the experience to be in charge of building and fire code inspections if the growth area was annexed. David Toyer, the city’s consultant and founder of Toyer Strategics, though, said the city has been in charge of those inspections in the urban growth area since an interlocal agreement was signed in 2006.
Another resident said the city should already have an increased staff at the police department in preparation for the possible expansion, though Toyer said it would be “imprudent” to hire staff that may not be necessary if the annexation does not go through.
As for traffic, the city is already collecting traffic impact fees, and has passed a rule that would allow the school and fire districts to do the same. As separate government entities, the decision to do so rests with the school and fire district directors.
The city has, for several months and in Thursday’s meeting, argued that expansion will relieve residents of increased property tax burdens.
“To maintain our services we’re offering now, increase them in the future, we have to have more tax revenue,” Svenson said. “We can raise the taxes on the current taxpayers, which is, in my view, lazy and unacceptable because it is taxing your district more, causing them more stress or heartache and furthering the poverty rate in your city, or, you can accept the responsibility and increase your tax base. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
