Loading...
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