Posted: August 14, 2024 497
I am again writing on behalf of the homeowners in the Meadowdale area who have been advocating for the redesignation of our neighborhood from Lynnwood’s Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) to Edmonds’ MUGA. We are disappointed with the outcome of last night’s meeting. Further, we would like to provide the following reflections on the discussion of and vote on redesignation, considering the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update process.
1. Only Edmonds addresses contiguous with Edmonds city limits: There was much discussion about how there are many Edmonds-addressed homes in the area around Meadowdale Beach Park; however, it was never noted that only our area has a contiguous border with Edmonds. Further, the border of our neighborhood with Edmonds is nearly twice the length of the border with Lynnwood’s residential city limits boundary. None of the other areas have any common border with Edmonds nor would they — they are all fully separated by incorporated Lynnwood already.
2. Policy is set by council and is already implied: The city is already in the process of a Comp Plan revision, and given the council’s previous Resolution 1530, revision to policy should have been taken as a given as the council had expressed an interest in updating this policy implicit in its support of resolution 1530 last year. The last Comp Plan review was before 1530 was resolved, ergo we think that staff’s point about policy misalignment is not justified — policy is founded in the Comp Plan but then amended, clarified and implemented through subsequent council resolutions and the council has sole right to establish and direct city policy. Rather, we feel that Councilmember Paine was correct in advocating that 1530 complemented the Comp Plan with policy amendments related to Edmonds MUGA and thus the question about absent or misaligned policy was moot.
3. Subject of the motion: We appreciated Councilmember Chen’s reason for abstention, as the issue before the council was not annexation but a decision to seek redesignation of the MUGA. The basic financial analysis presented by the city staff was done under the assumption of immediate annexation in the context of the city’s financial situation, which is utterly unrealistic. As noted during the meeting, Esperance has remained unannexed Edmonds MUGA for more than two decades. Even with a full-court press, we have been repeatedly told by city and county officials that the annexation process takes years, and that assumes that the area subject to annexation is already in the MUGA. The motion was phrased as related to a decision on annexation, which is not and would not be on the table for at least year.
4. Misleading timing, likelihood and amounts of city liabilities: Finally, and most disappointing, is the understanding that council seemed to draw from the crude, high-level analysis provided by city staff. Among other things, it was noted that, even when as an unannexed MUGA, Edmonds would be on the hook for expanding sewer systems in the event of a septic failure. State law was noted (which I assume refers to RCW 36.94.025), wherein any septic failure for a parcel within 200 feet of a sewer main would be required to connect to the sewer instead of installing a new septic system. Staff indicated, incorrectly, that this cost would fall to the city. Most if not all these costs are borne by the homeowner in such situations, as it is the homeowner’s legal responsibility to maintain septic systems and deal with decommissioning related costs.
Staff also indicated, incorrectly, that this forced conversion to sewer would apply to all unincorporated households (and also made it seem like septic failure was going to happen all at once). Only nine of the parcel boundaries are within 200 feet of existing Edmonds sewer mains (in 68th), all of which are facing the street where the sewer main is already installed. Three others are within 200 feet of the stub of Lynnwood’s main at the far SW corner of the unincorporated area. In the unlikely event that all 12 of these households have simultaneous, catastrophic septic failure, there is still no apparent main extension required, just stub-outs in existing in-street mains that would likely fall to the homeowner’s financial responsibilities by how state law is written.
Because the entire area (both Edmonds and Lynnwood incorporated areas) is serviced by the Lynnwood treatment plant down by Haines Wharf, existing capital plans and interlocal agreements should already cover downstream capacity requirements to account for these households, if not all households in our area. If they don’t already account for this needed capacity, they need to because state law makes no provisions for whether the sewer main is in the same municipal boundary as the failed septic system. Hence, Edmonds will have to integrate post-septic-failure connections for the nine aforementioned households regardless of which city’s MUGA contains us.
Overall, unfounded and incorrect assumptions about MUGA redesignation and eventual annexation were used to as the basis to present huge financial liabilities as a disincentive to support re-designation.
Especially after the work we’ve put in and the generally positive indications we’ve received from both Edmonds and Lynnwood so far about this redesignation, it’s extremely disappointing to have our case thrown out based on roughshod analysis that grossly overstated the likelihood and amount of any potential financial liabilities to the city for at least the next five years. Having this happen on top of the initial allocation into Lynnwood’s MUGA without any consultation with the households further compounds our disappointment.
We do appreciate the recognition of our efforts and the support of council in understanding our desire to at least be part of Edmonds’s MUGA. However, we strongly encourage council to consider further review of this issue in the ongoing Comprehensive Planning considering the points raised above. We also welcome council to come visit us, where we can give you a feet-on-the-ground understanding of the Edmonds vibes (as noted by Lynnwood city council during their discussion of it), topography, and adjacent infrastructure in our neighborhood.
— By Zach Bloomfield
