The city of Bonney Lake and Pierce County are both preparing this week for a Tuesday hearing before the Boundary Review Board that will determine the future of the annexation area south of city limits.
Bonney Lake hopes to make the area part of the city.

Court documents, filed last week by the county, give an indication of the potential discussions regarding the county’s decision to invoke jurisdiction and attempt to block the more than 1,860 acres from joining the city.

According to the county, the attempt by Bonney Lake to annex the area is premature.

Additionally, lawyers for Plateau 465, the largest parcel of land in the area – the section Deputy Mayor Dan Swatman has referred to as “the prize” of the region – filed a letter with the Boundary Review Board opposing the annexation.

The city of Bonney Lake has stated that though the area is not part of the city’s Urban Growth Area, it is considered a Comprehensive Urban Growth Area will eventually come into the city. The annexation is an attempt to have say over planning for the area as well as collect the impact fees that the city says will be necessary to providing the additional infrastructure and services needed.

Officials in Bonney Lake in the past have characterized the battle as one over money, as a full buildout of Plateau 465 is expected to generate more than $12 million in traffic impact fees and an estimated $8.8 million in park impact fees.

Bonney Lake also attempted to head off a Boundary Review Board battle by stipulating in a Jan. 5 letter the city would pledge that all transportation impact fees from the area will be used on projects in the area, promise the city will assume responsibility for the streets and sewers with no preconditions, spend all park impact fees collected from the area within the annexation area, and cooperate with the county and future owners of Cascadia in development of that project.

In the county’s brief, filed Feb. 22, lawyers for the county oppose the annexation because it is “premature and inconsistent with (Growth Management Act)” and not supported by the objectives of the act.

“The City’s proposed annexation of this area flies in the face of the goals of GMA in that it was not planned for by the City and it is not consistent with the planning that the City has done over the years,” the brief states.

The county points out that cities may annex land within their UGAs, but not necessarily CUGAs around their city. The county also argues that the city must update its comprehensive plan, including land use and municipal services, before attempting to annex the area.

“Other than its self-serving Annexation Study the city has failed to conduct required GMA review to bring this area within its UGA prior to its attempt to annex,” reads the brief.

The letter from Plateau 465 also cites a “lack of smart growth zoning and comprehensive planning tools necessary to realize master planned communities” and says the city is “inadequately equipped to realize the infrastructure improvements necessary.”

The city of Bonney Lake disagrees with the assessment and is planning a response this week.