City of Ferndale officials presented a structured annexation phasing plan — which they call a “deliberate expansion plan” — to the House Local Government Committee, saying the plan aims to close gaps left by the Growth Management Act and to make annexation a predictable capstone to long‑range planning rather than a last‑minute battle.

The plan matters because, presenters said, uncoordinated development in the city’s unincorporated urban growth area (UGA) has produced parcels built on septic systems, cumulative impacts to impaired waters, and regional infrastructure needs that the city and state agencies now must address. "Without an annexation phasing plan or blueprint, it makes the annexation process a lot more difficult than it needs to be," said Jory Burnett, City Administrator, City of Ferndale.

Burnett told the committee that Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) lays out goals for planning and eventual annexation of UGAs but leaves a procedural gap between identifying UGAs and carrying out annexations. That gap, he said, often results in incremental, project‑by‑project county development that fractures larger, more efficient urban development opportunities and reduces incentives for property owners to annex. Burnett said that in the Grandview area north of Ferndale, the county has allowed more than 1.5 million square feet of development in the unincorporated UGA largely served by septic systems and within impaired water bodies. "If this had been part of the City of Ferndale, we likely would have collected over $10,000,000 in impact fees," Burnett said.

Michael Sorbonne, Community Development Director, City of Ferndale, described how the annexation blueprint is organized and used. The plan divides the UGA into 17 subareas and classifies each as short‑term, midterm or long‑term eligibility for annexation. Sorbonne said the blueprint is meant to "establish city conditions for annexation upfront" and to align annexation timing with capital projects such as water and sewer extensions so annexations occur where the city can affordably and effectively extend services. "If the annexation is not timely based on our blueprint, then there's a very, very strong likelihood it will not be approved," he said.

Presenters and committee members discussed how county land‑use practices and special districts affect annexation prospects. Burnett said counties often aim to preserve farmland and resource lands and therefore plan incrementally in UGAs; that incremental subdivision, he said, reduces parcel sizes and makes future efficient assemblage and urbanization more difficult. Committee members asked about the role of fire districts, with one member asking whether revenue loss to fire districts is a major cause of annexation opposition. Burnett said Ferndale’s UGA is served by the same fire district as the city, so impacts there have been limited, but he and Sorbonne said the blueprint is designed to identify impacts to school districts, fire districts and other service providers early so mitigation can be negotiated ahead of an annexation application.

Committee members asked to receive the presenters’ slides and follow‑up materials. At least one committee member suggested the Association of Washington Cities and other city managers’ groups as partners to spread best practices. Presenters also urged state or regional incentives that would encourage cities to take on annexations when county management of UGAs is not producing efficient urban outcomes.

The Ferndale presenters said the blueprint is not intended to compel annexation; rather, it provides objective expectations and information for residents, developers and affected entities. Sorbonne said the blueprint gives residents and property owners a clearer picture of when development would be served by city utilities and what infrastructure would be needed, which can reduce late opposition and political uncertainty at the time an annexation is proposed.

The committee discussion included repeated emphasis on early intergovernmental coordination and on tying capital investment timing to annexation eligibility. Members urged Ferndale to continue outreach with counties, school districts and special districts and to send committee materials for review.

Ending: Presenters offered to supply slides and contacts for follow‑up. Committee members indicated interest in further discussion on incentives and county‑city coordination; no formal votes or actions were taken during the presentation.