Annexation and Growth Management Agreements - Revenue Sharing
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.
The Skagit County/Anancortes agreement, the Douglas County/East Wenatchee agreement and the Walla Walla County/city of Walla Walla agreement all provide for city reimbursement to the county of some percentage of the county’s lost sales tax revenue within the annexed area. That percentage declines over a period of years, as described in the agreements. The Kitsap County agreement also addresses ad valorem property tax and admission tax lost by the county. In a different twist, the Kitsap County agreement also provides for county reimbursement to the city for sales that that the city loses when a major retail business relocates from the city to the city urban growth area while still under county jurisdiction.
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).
Examples of county/city agreements in MRSC's Library collection that address revenue-sharing appear below.
- Interlocal Agreement Between Kitsap County and the City of Bainbridge Island, City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard and City of Poulsbo Concerning Revenue Sharing Upon Annexation and In Conjunction With Major Land Use Decisions Within a City's Urban Growth Area, 2001, and Urban Growth Area Management Agreements & Annexations, Kitsap County web page.
- Interlocal Agreement between the City Of East Wenatchee and Douglas County Regarding Annexation Delivery of Services and Revenue Sharing, 5/31/01, plus 1st amendment to agreement, 2006.
- Interlocal Agreement Between Skagit County and the City of Anacortes Regarding Adoption and Implementation of the City Of Anacortes Urban Growth Area, 2003.
- Urban Growth Area Management Agreement, (city of Walla Walla and Walla Walla County) 1999.
- 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.
- Interlocal Agreement between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County concerning Annexation and Development within the City of Bellingham UGA (Interlocal Agreement No. 1997-0454) 1997 – Note that this agreement has been amended at least 19 times, but primarily to recognize new annexations or to extend the duration of the agreement, and Bellingham Agenda Bill # AB 18276, approved January 12, 2009 extending Interlocal Agreement No. 1997-0454 to the end of 2009.
- Interstate 25 Corridor Growth Area Intergovernmental Agreement (Thornton, Westminster, Thornton Development Authority, Westminster Economic Development Authority) 2004.
- First amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement between city of Louisville and Town of Superior, CO) 2005.
We would appreciate any other examples of revenue-sharing agreements or studies that counties would like to share.