FREELAND — Residents attending the first public hearing to create the city of Freeland were hit with a double whammy before the first person got up to testify Monday.
Island County Commissioner Mike Shelton told the crowd of almost 100 that the boundaries for the proposed city of Freeland will be shrunk to match the smaller “urban growth area” set out by a volunteer planning committee three years ago.
And with the county taking steps to formalize the Freeland boundary as a “non-municipal urban growth area,” the November vote that was planned to form the city will now be pushed off until next year.
According to state law, an area may incorporate only if it lies within an “urban growth area,” a legal designation that stems from the state’s Growth Management Act.
“State law says you cannot incorporate an area in a county that isn’t first an urban growth area,” Shelton said.
That now means Freeland’s march to cityhood will be delayed until the county completes its work to recognize the Freeland area as a “non-municipal urban growth area,” or NMUGA.
Earlier Monday, county commissioners approved a $50,000 contract with Seattle-based BHC Consultants for help in completing the NMUGA plan for Freeland.
Supporters of making Freeland a city filed a “notice to incorporate” with the county on March 9. But now the vote on incorporation will be pushed forward to February 2008, at least.
Shelton said the consultant is expected to be finished in October.
Even so, the county’s adoption of the plan could leave it subject to a challenge before a state growth board.
“There is 60-day appeal process, which would preclude a vote on incorporation in November,” Shelton said.
“Those two processes — urban growth area designation and incorporation — can parallel one another to a point. The incorporation process will have to stop short of the vote until the NMUGA is adopted and the appeal process is competed,” Shelton said.
Freeland is currently designated a rural area of intense development, or RAID, and the county is required to adopt the Freeland Sub-Area Plan — completed in May 2004 — to abide by state laws that dictate incorporations can only happen within land set aside for future growth, or “urban growth areas.”
Once the Freeland Sub-Area Plan is adopted, Freeland will be designated an urban growth area, with much smaller boundaries than those drawn for the new city.
Officials said the NMUGA boundary is cast in stone as a result of the years of planning that went into it, and the unanimous decision by the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee that put the plan together. Officials said the NMUGA boundary can not be changed without reconvening the Freeland Sub Area Planning Committee.
Dean Enell, chairman of the boundary committee, said they will conduct a review to see how the county’s legal opinion could impact the committee’s incorporation efforts.
“It’s not black and white,” Enell said
“We did see a municipal attorney and he didn’t say anything to us about it,” he added.
“We’ll report on those findings shortly,” he said. “We’ll also be working with the county to see how our efforts to incorporate and the county’s efforts to approve Freeland as an NMUGA can be best coordinated to serve the needs of Freeland residents and accomplish our goals.”
The smaller boundaries mean that some areas will be trimmed from the proposed city limits of Freeland, including Mutiny Bay, Mutiny Sands and Menlo Beach. Those areas are not included in the urban growth area adopted by the Freeland Sub Area Planning Committee.
The proposed incorporation boundaries include 1,800 acres, or 2.8 square miles, with an estimated population of 3,200.
The minimum population required to incorporate is 1,500.
The incorporation effort began two years ago when a group of volunteers from the Vision 2025 committee began discussing the possibility of incorporating Freeland.
Since then, the group has set boundaries for the new city, compiled some financial information and and written a feasibility study for the new city.
Shelton complimented the work done by the incorporation committee to this point.
“They have tried to leave not one stone unturned,” he said.
In February, the group finalized the new boundaries for the city, which include the housing developments to the west on Mutiny Bay and Holmes Harbor to the north. Only Holmes Harbor is included in the proposed urban growth boundary.
During the hearing, people spoke for and against incorporation, including several who are involved in the incorporation process.
Both sides said maintaining the rural character of Freeland was paramount. Opinions differed on how to do that, however.
Taxes were also a concern; supporters of incorporation say taxes won’t increase, but some residents are not convinced.
There was also support for a sewer system for Freeland.
However, Shelton said the two are not intertwined.
“It’s important not to marry incorporation with sewers,” he said.
The Freeland Water and Sewer District is currently conducting a feasibility study into sewers for the Freeland.
Mary Solt said there wasn’t much in Freeland when she moved there 30 years ago.
“There was not much here then and many of us were happy to be unincorporated. We were happy to have county government far away in Coupeville,” Solt said.
“But things have changed. Freeland has become a commercial hub and already bearing the brunt of growth,” she said.
Gavin Campbell, a Cameron Road resident, said he is concerned about maintaining Freeland’s rural look.
“We need to retain the character of Freeland. I am concerned with the water quality in Holmes Harbor, too, and believe that sewers are important,” he said.
“I don’t want to see 5-acre plots with one house become housing subdivisions,” Campbell said.
John McFarland, who lives on Shore Avenue off Double Bluff Road, joined the incorporation committee a year ago.
“I thought we would be part of the city, we’re not,” he said. “However, I am a firm believer in local government. Many people moved here to get a way from the city and retaining the rural character of Freeland is important to all of us.”
“The county is doing the best it can, but who better to have a vision for Freeland but the people who live here,” McFarland added.
Talk that taxes would not rise if Freeland would incorporate was met with skepticism from some, including Rod Moran, who recently moved from a city in Florida that went through the incorporation process.
“Our taxes doubled to help pay the salaries of city employees,” he said. “All of a sudden city volunteers became paid employees.”
Mike Dolan, chairman of the Vision 2025 committee, said the incorporation committee studied 18 municipal areas of Washington state that recently incorporated. In most cases, there weren’t any new taxes.
Ultimately, Dolan said, the level of services will be set by the people elected to Freeland’s city council.
Steve Erickson, co-founder of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, said once Freeland is a city, it will continue to grow and annex nearby rural areas.
“There will be urban walls that affect the wildlife corridor on the island,” he said.
Marianne Edain, also with WEAN, said incorporation is just a “foot in the door for future expansion.”
“As development increases, so does the cost of services,” she said.
“Incorporation is going to equal development. You are not going to maintain the rural character. Incorporation is going to require more intense development,” Edain said.
“There is a minimum of four houses per acre within urban boundaries,” she added.
Nancy Walker said some in the Holmes Harbor subdivision would like to be excluded from the incorporation effort.
“We are a sewer district and will be unfairly punished with new taxes. We are doing the right things right,” she said.
Walker estimated she will be paying $300 in addition to what she pays today.
“My concern is Holmes Harbor will not benefit other than to be a nice big purse for Freeland and a pricey jobs with the city,” she said.
“I am a little suspect who is going to have those jobs,” Walker added.
Gayle Saran can be reached at 221-5300 orgsaran@southwhidbeyrecord.com.
