The city of Spokane is taking baby steps to expand its borders, two years after it targeted for annexation big chunks of land in nearly every direction, only to be thwarted by an adverse court decision and the incorporation of Spokane Valley.


On Nov. 4, the city likely will succeed in its first such step in years.


Its a small annexationjust 7 1/4 acres on Spokanes South Hillbut its notable for a couple of reasons.


First, its an example of how the city can annex land without having to rely on signed petitions or covenants from landowners who get to hook up to city water and sewer services in return for agreeing not to fight future annexation. The city, which has extended utilities beyond its borders with the promise of eventually annexing land it serves, had for decades counted on that form of annexation, which enabled it to annex land in cases where owners of 75 percent of the lands assessed value had signed such petitions.


The Washington state Supreme Court made such petition forms of annexation illegal in March 2002.


With that method gone, the city will conduct a public vote for its current South Hill annexation bid, though in this case the only two voters are the couple who own the land to be annexed.


Secondly, this expected annexation was initiated by those landowners, who want to sell their land to a developer who says that a planned residential development there would progress more easily under city jurisdiction. (See story page A5.)


Dave Mandyke, the citys deputy director of public works and utilities, says the expected annexation will be a refreshing scenario, especially considering the public opposition the city has encountered in previous annexation attempts.


It would be nice to do whats wanted, rather than people feeling were putting upon somebody, Mandyke says.


The planned November annexation would consist of land located along the east side of Freya Street at about 50th Avenue, just south of the city limits in an area known as the Moran Prairie. Mandyke says the city also recently has received other inquiries from landowners in that area who would like to pursue becoming part of the city.


One, he says, came from someone who owns 50 acres and is considering a development on his property. Mandyke says the landowner believes the project would be more viable inside the city limits than outside. He declines for now to identify the landowner or the location of the property.


Another inquiry, he says, came from a small number of county homeowners near the Berkeley Woods development a short distance northwest of the annexation area to be voted on in November.


The city also still has its eye on the land occupied by a big ShopKo Stores Inc. outlet a few blocks to the west at 44th Avenue and Regal Street. The parcel sits on the western corner of a large triangular chunk of unincorporated land that stretches all the way to Freya and south to the Palouse Highway, which could be annexed in pieces or altogether.


Weve always coveted ShopKo, says Mandyke, adding that the city would like to get a share of the retail sales tax collected by that store.


The ShopKo property by itself doesnt include any homes, so there would be no residents to vote on an annexation there. Thats one of the reasons the city has supported legislative changes that would broaden the options cities have for annexation following the March 2002 court ruling that eliminated petition annexations.


Such broadening came, at least in a small way, with the enactment this spring of Substitute Senate Bill 5409, which allows cities to annex lands by securing petitions both from the owners of a majority of the acreage in the area and a majority of the registered voters in the area. If the property is uninhabited, a petition must be signed just by the owners of a majority of the acreage.


In its decision a year earlier, the Supreme Court had said the petition form of annexation was unconstitutional because it gave owners of high-value properties more power than other residents. Until the recent legislation, that left cities with just two methods for annexation: either a vote of the residents or, in cases where at least 80 percent of the land already is bordered by the city, by action of a city council.


Mandyke says the city still might use a public vote to annex lands where there are residents who have expressed interest in annexation, but also will consider using the new legislation where it makes sense, including in cases where there are no homes on the land it wants to annex.


In addition, he says its also possible that the city could include uninhabited parcels in a larger area that includes residents who have expressed an interest in annexation, and still pursue a public vote within those areas.


Whatever method the city chooses, it plans to continue to pursue these small annexation bites, he says.


Theyre victories, he says. Well take them as we can get them.


Meanwhile, the city still is pursuing legislative or court actions that would bring back petition forms of annexation. The state Supreme Court has been asked by proponents of that form of annexation to reconsider its March 2002 decision, and the city has written a statement in court supporting that effort. It also is supporting a proposed legislative measure that would enable cities to annex, without a public vote, areas in which the city provides 75 percent of the sewer or water service.


That measure, called House Bill 1801 last session, failed to pass but is expected to be reintroduced in the coming session, Mandyke says.


West Plains, North Side


The city of Spokane also still plans to pursue annexations to the north of its borders and on the West Plains. In August 2002, it filed with the Spokane County Boundary Review Board its intent to annex about 19.5 square miles of land that includes Spokane International Airport and surrounding areas, through public vote.


Over the next year, it held meetings with residents in that area, began negotiating with the fire district there, and fought with the city of Airway Heights, which was proposing its own annexation of some of the same land.


The area had been selected before the Supreme Court ruling, and the city initially went ahead with that size, but later reduced the proposed annexation area significantly because a smaller area was more likely to be approved in a public vote, says Mandyke.


Still, the proposal faced challenges, both from residents of the area and the fire districts that serve it, and the city has pretty much put the matter on the back burner while it waits for the Supreme Court to rule on the reconsideration request, he says. Mandyke says he has no idea how long that will take.


In the meantime, the city will look at a possible annexation in the Linwood area of the North Side. There, it has identified a strip a land resembling a backwards L situated along Francis Avenue and Division Street. The strip extends as far north as the Costco Wholesale Corp. store at 7619 N. Division, which is attractive to the city for its sales-tax revenue. The strip also includes a mix of commercial and some residential properties farther south on Division and west along Francis.


If the city ends up pursuing that annexation via a public vote, relatively few voters will decide the issue; preliminary estimates put the number of registered voters there at about 150.