Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › PLANNING › Annexation Agreements - Revenue Sharing
 
Revenue Sharing

Annexation Agreements - Revenue Sharing

MRSC, September 2000

MRSC has a number of revenue sharing agreements that may be of interest to counties. These agreements address transition of public service provision and compensation to counties, at least on a transitional basis, for lost revenues. They usually focus on re-allocation of property and sales taxes. We have several agreements that address revenue cost sharing and service transition for annexations in general. Other examples address revenue sharing or adjustments related to specific large developments. A few include preliminary agreements that set in motion work toward future agreements to share or adjust revenues.

Walla Walla County and the city of Walla Walla have signed an agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document 1.77MB) that establishes a framework to address fiscal impacts of the annexation of significant developed commercial and industrial properties. In the agreement, the city and county have established a formula that will compensate the county for lost revenue resulting from annexation, and that will compensate the city for expenditures for the provision of services to the annexed area. The Walla Walla agreement is similar to a 1990 agreement (no longer operative) between the city of Lacey and Thurston County. The Lacey/Thurston County agreement could also be applied to significant residential property annexations if the new city service cost exceeded revenues. The Lacey/Thurston agreement also addressed Thurston County groundwater protection concerns.

Grant County and the city of Moses Lake reached a mediated agreement to provide for timely annexations by Moses Lake, while protecting the financial viability of the Grant County Road fund. The agreement contains reimbursement formulas to help the county adjust to reduced road revenues. The city will reimburse the county at a decreasing rate over a six-year period, corresponding with the time frame of the county's capital improvement program. Separate formulas are established for resource-based and non-resource based property annexations. The agreement also addresses city-county cost sharing for maintenance costs on a specific road. The city will also reimburse the county for the locally funded portion of any capital investments made by the county within the unincorporated UGA, at the time of annexation.

We also have a comprehensive set of agreements between Clark County and its cities addressing the transition of responsibilities for the provision of services (and related revenue adjustments) following annexation. Among them is a revenue-sharing agreement to address the impacts of a specific large development (Van Mall). Finally, we have agreements that include revenue adjustments related to the annexation of large planned developments in Snohomish and King Counties.

Other county/city agreements in MRSC's Library collection that address revenue-sharing include (these documents are available to Washington State city/town/county employees and officials at no charge by contacting the MRSC Library at (206) 625-1300 or through our library loan request form):

  • Memorandum of Understanding, Urban Growth Area Zoning and Development Standards - Thurston County, Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater, 1995
  • Interlocal Agreement between Bellingham and Whatcom County Concerning Annexation and Development within the Bellingham UGA, 1997
  • Memorandum of Understanding, Urban Growth Area Zoning and Development Standards (Skagit County and Mt. Vernon) 1998
  • Master Interlocal Agreement for GMA Implementation in Yakima County. 1999
  • Snohomish County and Mukilteo agreement to coordinate on planning programs and public service continuity
  • Snohomish County and Bothell Agreement (Adobe Acrobat Document1.43 MB) to coordinate planning, community development, parks, public works, public safety and public service continuity for the Canyon Park Annexation, 1992
  • Master Transportation Financing Agreement from Grand Ridge Joint Agreement among King County, City of Issaquah, Grand Ridge Limited Partnership, and Glacier Ridge Limited Partnership, Draft, 1995 (Appendix F)
  • City of Vancouver/Clark County Annexation Transition Agreements, 1996, including the Clark County/City of Vancouver "Van Mall" Revenue Sharing Agreement, and other agreements related to public service transition and revenue adjustment, such as this Finance and Administration Agreement.
  • "Revenue sharing Agreement Between Grant County and the City of Moses Lake," 1999.
  • "Urban Growth Area Management Agreement," (city of Walla Walla and Walla Walla County) 1999

Our collection also includes some examples of city/city revenue sharing agreements from other states:

  • "Intergovernmental Agreement (city of Louisville and Town of Superior, CO) 1997
  • Revenue Sharing Agreement and Cooperative Boundary Plan (Village of Jackson and Town of Jackson, WI) 1999
  • "Intergovernmental Agreement - East Central Boulder County Comprehensive Development Plan, 1994
  • "Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Cities of Thornton and Westminister, 1986

We would appreciate any other examples of revenue-sharing agreements or studies that counties would like to share.