HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-1998sp SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 19, 1998 4:30 PM
Auburn City Hall
Council Work Area
Minutes
I. INTRODUCTION
Mayor Booth called the special meeting of the Auburn City Council to order at 4:30 p.m.
in the Council Work Area of Auburn City Hall. Mayor Booth and the following members
of the City Council were present: Jeanne Barber, Sue Singer, Fred Poe, Rich Wagner,
and Trish Borden. Councilmember Gene Cerino arrived at 5:07 p.m. Councilmember
Pete Lewis was excused.
Staff members present included: City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, Utilities Engineer Dwight
Holobaugh, Senior Planner Bob Sokol, Associate Planner Keith Niven, Fire Chief Bob
Johnson, City Attorney Michael J. Reynolds, Personnel Director Brenda Heineman,
Finance Director Diane L. Supler, and City Clerk Danielle Daskam.
II. BACKGROUND
Mayor Booth explained the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the overall ideas and
concepts of annexation. Senior Planner Bob Sokol explained that with the adoption of
the Growth Management Act in 1990, a new focus was placed on annexations and
incorporations. The Growth Management Act emphasizes that counties are regional
service providers while cities are urban service providers. Unincorporated areas within
the urban growth boundary should annex into existing cities or incorporate. The
Countywide Planning Policies were developed as a result of the Growth Management
Act. The Countywide Planning Policies instruct cities within King County to designate
Potential Annexation Areas. Mr. Sokol displayed a map featuring the City's Potential
Annexation Areas, which include the West Hill, Lea Hill, a few island areas, and the
Lakeland/Pierce County area.
Mr. Sokol discussed two main processes for annexation. The election method can be
initiated in two ways, either by petition of residents of the area or by resolution of the City
Council. The election method requires a vote by the residents of the area, not
necessarily the property owners. The City must also bear the cost of the election. The
City is prohibited from taking an active role in promoting the election. Mr. Sokol also
noted that any existing agreements to annex serve no purpose in the election method for
annexation.
The more common annexation process is the petition method. The property owners
drive the petition method. Owners of property comprising at least 10 percent of the
assessed value of an annexation area can request to annex to the city. Following the
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
Mamh 19, 1998
Page 2
request, the City Council makes a determination to either accept or reject the annexation
proposal and whether it will require the assumption of the city's bonded indebtedness.
The City of Auburn currently has no bonded indebtedness. If the City Council accepts
the annexation proposal, a petition is prepared and circulated in the annexation area.
The petition must be signed by owners of not less than 60 percent of the assessed value
of the annexation area. Once the petition is filed with the City Council, a public hearing
is scheduled and held. Following the Councii's public hearing, the annexation proposal
is submitted to the Boundary Review Board, which holds a hearing and either approves
or disapproves the annexation and forwards its decision to the City Council. If the
Boundary Review Board approves the annexation, the City Council adopts an ordinance
approving the annexation. Mr. Sokol advised that the petition method for annexation
could take from six months to a year or more to complete. The City can also be very
proactive during the petition annexation process and utilize existing preannexation
agreementS. Mr. Sokol displayed a map illustrating the preannexation agreements for
Lea Hill.
Mr. Sokol discussed the cost of providing urban services to annexed areas. The City
can provide services directly or contract for the services. Under the Growth
Management Act's concurrency requirements, if an annexed area is below the current
city level of service standard, the city is responsible for bringing the annexed area up to
the city's level of service standard within six years. The City of Aubum's Potential
Annexation Areas are largely residential and may prove to be revenue neutral. He also
explained that there are costs for not annexing an area. These costs include the use of
city facilities by county residents and staff review of developments in unincorporated
areas while not receiving permit fees, excise tax, property tax, and sales tax. The City
must also consider the impact of development in unincorporated areas on City services,
roads and streets; and the difficulty in implementing the City's development standards in
the Potential Annexation Areas.
Councilmember Wagner questioned the services included under the Growth
Management Acrs concurrency requirements. Mr. Sokol advised that the Growth
Management Act clearly identifies transportation facilities must meet the requirements of
concurrency.
III. DISCUSSION OF KING COUNTY
AND PIERCE COUNTY ANNEXATION ISSUES
· Mr. Sokol reported thatover the last few years the City has made considerable progress
with both King and Pierce Counties in addressing the City's concerns regarding
annexations. The City has signed Interlocal Agreements establishing the City's Potential
Annexation Area boundaries with all municipalities surrounding the city. King County
appears ready to adopt and recognize the City's Potential Annexation Areas. King
County has been concerned with the City's recognition of King County's Agricultural
Production District (APD). The City will look to adopt a natural resource designation for
the APD which will allow agricultural uses but also allow the area to be used for wetland
mitigation.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
March 19, 1998
Page 3
IV. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ANNEXATIONS
Associate Planner Keith Niven presented an overview of the City's Potential Annexation
Areas. The City's total Potential Annexation Areas, comprised primarily of residential
areas, will increase the size of the city by approximately one-third.
Mr. Niven referred to a city map depicting the island annexation areas. The island
annexation areas are five remnant county parcels scattered throughout the city. Mr.
Niven reported that last year the state legislature changed the law for annexation of
island areas. The law provides that if a city surrounds an area by 80 percent or more,
the city can process an annexation by resolution. The resolution can be appealed, and
the annexation proposal could be submitted as a referendum. Of the five island
annexation areas in the city, all but one exceed the 80 percent threshold.
The Lea Hill annexation area is the City's eastern Potential Annexation Area. The City
provides water and sewer services to Lea Hill residents, and the City has committed staff
time over the past year to organize and administer a citizens task force to study the
annexation of Lea Hill. Staff met with the Lea Flill Task Force for over nine months to
identify issues and concerns with annexation. Some of the issues identified by the
residents are: the ability to keep farm animals, traffic on Lea Hill Road and a possible
connection to the 277th Street project, the amount of park land for the area, fire service,
storm water basins, environmental issues, and curbside recycling. Mr. Niven recalled
that the City Council adopted the Lea Hill Task Force policy document as part of the
City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mayor Booth recessed the meeting at 5:07 p.m.
Mayor Booth reconvened the meeting at 5:12 p.m.
Senior Planner Sokol discussed the West Hill Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The
West Hill PAA consists of two distinct areas, the larger portion above the bluffs and the
lower portion in the north, which is located in the King County Agricultural Production
District (APD). The high ground on West Hill is fairly isolated from the City, However,
this year 15 Street NW will be constructed to connect with the West Hill. Mr. Sokol
advised there are very few preannexation agreements for property on the West Hill since
the City does not provide water and sewer service to much of the area. The portion of
.the-West Hill Potential Annexation Area within the APD is largely unbuildable due to
wetlands, floodplains, and the APD. Mr. Sokol pointed out the Schuler Brothers farm,
which is located adjacent to the valley freeway. The City has received a $600,000 grant
from King County Conservation Funds to purchase the Schuler property. An additional
$500,000 may be available from King County to conduct farmland projects on the
property and storm water projects for King County Surface Water Management. The
City has also applied for a $1 million grant from Department of Ecology's Centennial
Clean Water Fund for the property.
Mr. Sokol reported that staff members have been working with King County on a
Memorandum of Agreement for designating the City's Potential Annexation Areas. King
County has been reluctant to enter into an agreement recognizing the City's PAA's
SpeciaiCity Council Meeting Minutes
March 19, 1998
Page 4
because of a disagreement over King County Agricultural Production District. The issue
is expected to be resolved in the near future.
Mr. Sokol briefly discussed the Pierce County Potential Annexation Area. The Pierce
County Boundary Review Board will rule on the City's annexation of a portion of Pierce
County later this month.
V. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Mr. Sokol asked for Council direction for the staffs approach to future annexations. He
recommended that staff take a more aggressive approach in pursuing the island
annexations. Mr. Niven recommended staff coordinate neighborhood meetings with the
residents of the island annexation areas in order to provide them with information
regarding annexation. It was consensus of the Council that staff members proceed with
meetings with the residents and then report back to the Council on the results from the
meetings.
In response to questions from Councilmember Borden, Mr. Sokol advised that an
analysis of the cost of annexing the Lea Hill area was conducted last year. The Lea Hill
area was divided into three sections for the analysis. Finance Director Supler explained
that for an established neighborhood, such as Lea Hill, there would be considerable one-
time capital expenses at time of annexation. One-time capital expenses would include
additional street maintenance equipment and fire equipment. A preliminary analysis of
the Lea Hill annexation also revealed there is considerable unfunded costs associated
with transportation. Annexation of those areas, which are less developed, would have
less impact on the City, and the City would be able to receive sales tax revenues from
new construction. Mr. Sokol added that Lea Hill is partially developed, and it is
developing rapidly. Considerable amounts of revenue could be lost by delaying
annexation of the Lea Hill area.
Councilmember Wagner suggested the City annex the north portion of Lea Hill first.
Councilmember Singer reported that the residents of the north portion of Lea Hill area
are more reluctant to annex than the residents of the south portion of the Lea Hill area.
Councilmember Poe expressed concern with the cost of annexation and the expectation
of residents for capital improvements. He requested a 1 O-year forecast of the expenses
associated with annexation of the Lea Hill area.
Councilmember Borden expressed interest in pursuing some of the annexation financial
considerations in a Planning and Community Development Committee meeting.
Councilmembers Wagner, Poe and Cerino indicated reluctance to aggressively pursue
the Lea Hill annexation.
Councilmember Singer suggested the City consider the election method of annexation
for the Lea Hill area.
Mayor Booth opened the meeting for comments from the audience.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
March 19, 1998
Page 5
Paula Thrush
Ms. Thrush questioned whether the surcharge on water and sewer service for customers
outside the city limits would be considered a loss of revenue. Finance Director Supler
explained that the surcharge is minimal compared to the cost of operation of the utilities.
The Water and Sewe~:.Funds would be able to absorb the costs.
Bob Pfaff ~,' .1<
Mr. Pfaff conveyed big support for annexation of the Lea Hill area. He suggested the
City annex the Lea Hill area in phases beginning with the south portion of Lea Hill.
Paula Thrush
Ms. Thrush reported that the latest projections for development on Lea Hill indicate that
the development will occur in the north Lea Hill area.
Harold Broadbent
Mr. Broadbent identified himself as a resident of the West Hill. He expressed opposition
to annexation of the West Hill. He expressed satisfaction with King County services and
water and sewer service from Lakehaven Utility District. He suggested annexation of
West Hill would be a burden on the City.
Councilmember Barber suggested a survey of residents to determine their interest in
annexation.
City Engineer Dowdy noted that the majority of the roads in the Lea Hill area are in good
condition, and could rate equal to or better than existing City arterials.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
Approved on the p?~/:~ day of ~Z.~J ,1998.
Charles A. Boo~h,~a;'gr Danielle Daskam, City Clerk
98m3-19