A Lewis County Superior Court judge has dismissed the City of Winlock’s proposal for orders that, if approved, would have enforced the city’s annexation of 1,355 acres of Winlock’s urban growth area (UGA).
The City of Winlock filed notice of intent for the annexation proposal with the state of Washington Boundary Review Board for Lewis County, which reviews proposals for annexations in Lewis County, through the Lewis County Clerk’s Office on Dec. 1, 2022, beginning a 45-day statutory period that expired Jan. 15, 2023.
However, the Boundary Review Board issued its first official notice of Winlock’s proposed annexation on Jan. 12, 2023, beginning another statutory period that expired Feb. 27. During that second statutory period, 65 Winlock UGA residents submitted a petition to the Boundary Review Board opposing the annexation, prompting the Boundary Review Board to invoke its jurisdiction and halt the annexation until the board could review the city’s capacity to expand urban-level services to the UGA.
The City of Winlock argued the statutory period ending Jan. 15 was the correct one and claimed the annexation went into effect without opposition because the Boundary Review Board didn’t impose its jurisdiction until after the deadline. The city asked Lewis County Superior Court to issue formal orders forcing the Boundary Review Board to recognize the annexation.
The City of Winlock specifically asked for writs of mandamus, a type of court order forcing a lesser government official to properly perform their duties, requiring the Boundary Review Board to recognize the approval of the City of Winlock’s annexation proposal.
In addition, the City of Winlock asked for writs of prohibition, a type of court order preventing a lesser court from interfering with a higher court, “to permanently restrain the Boundary Review Board” from taking any future action related to the City of Winlock’s annexation proposal.
The Boundary Review Board argued the City of Winlock has no legal authority to directly file an annexation proposal. That authority lies with the Boundary Review Board, meaning the statutory period didn’t begin until the Boundary Review Board issued notice to the public on Jan. 12.
The Boundary Review Board and the Winlock UGA residents named as respondents in the case asked Lewis County Superior Court to dismiss the City of Winlock’s petition, which Judge J. Andrew Toynbee did during a hearing on Friday, April 14.
Toynbee said Friday he could not confirm when the notice of intent was officially filed and thus could not issue formal orders upholding the City of Winlock’s claims the proper filing date was Dec. 1.
The City of Winlock has not exhausted all of its options for resolving the situation through the Boundary Review Board, Toynbee added, encouraging Winlock officials to continue engaging in the Boundary Review Board’s process.
“We are obviously disappointed with the outcome of the hearing today,” Jim Buzzard, the attorney representing the City of Winlock in this case, told The Chronicle on Friday. “The court was unable to determine whether or not the Boundary Review Board has current jurisdiction over the Winlock annexation. The court reasoned that (Toynbee) was unable to determine what the effective filing date was, either Dec. 1, 2022 or January 12, 2023 based on the actions of the chief clerk. Due to the court's ruling, (Toynbee) directed that the City of Winlock address the same concerns to the Boundary Review Board. The city will be doing so.”
The City of Winlock’s annexation proposal has been a subject of discord within the Winlock community since at least August 2022, when the City of Winlock voted to advance the proposal despite public outcry from UGA residents.
In the February petition to the Boundary Review Board, UGA residents argued the City of Winlock lacked the infrastructure “to care for us in the UGA” and stated, “they do not want their land to be placed in the hands of the City of Winlock, who will make all new residents abide by their city ordinances. They prefer to live in the country. If they wanted to live in the city, they would have purchased homes in the city.”
