Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2007-007 Occidental Annexation
Return To: Yakima City Clerk 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Document Title ORDINANCE NO. 2007-07 (Occidental Annexation) Grantor- City of Yakima Grantee The Public ABREVIATED LEGAL. DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point of the existing corporate limits of the City of Yakima, being further described as the intersection of the south line of West Washington Avenue with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 13 North, Range 18 Est, W.M. (see Exhibit `B' of attached Ordinance for complete legal description). Parcel Numbers: 171201-11005, 171201-11401, 171201-11402, continued (See attached list of parcel numbers after Exhibit `B'.) 11111111111111E 1111111 1111111111'111111 lege/2101:1E831339, 55676 f 84%9912667 63i3 39P YAKIMR COUNTY PLANNING i OE ' ORO $44 68;' Yakima Co, WA t lil „ 11 d t iii i W' ,i)J'11 _i 1 tul 1 lLJ I' __ ORDINANCE NO 2007 - 07 AN ORDINANCE concerning annexation, annexing the Occidental Annexation area to the City of Yakima, changing the current zoning of the area to R-1 Single -Family Residential, providing for notice to the WUTC of the City's intent to provide residential refuse collection and disposal service, assumption of the City's current indebtedness by properties in the Occidental Annexation area, and an effective date of April 8, 2007 WHEREAS, proceedings have been held in accordance with all applicable laws for the annexation to the City of Yakima of the Occidental Annexation hereinafter described, and WHEREAS, the City duly filed a notice of intention with the state Boundary Review Board for Yakima County (BRB) for the Occidental Annexation No request was submitted invoking BRB jurisdiction, therefore on January 22, 2007 the Occidental Annexation was deemed approved by the Board, and WHEREAS, garbage and refuse collection within the Occidental Annexation area is presently being provided by Yakima Waste Systems, Inc., under authority issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) to both residential and commercial accounts and the City desires to provide such services to residential accounts only in accordance with RCW 35 13.280; and WHEREAS, RCW 35 13.280 requires the City to grant Yakima Waste Systems, Inc., as the current WUTC-authorized provider of garbage and refuse collection and disposal service within the Occidental Annexation area, a franchise to continue such service to residential properties within the Occidental Annexation area for a term of not less than seven years after annexation becomes effective Such franchise does not apply to garbage and refuse generated by commercial establishments because the City does not provide or contract for such service The City understands that collection and disposal services to all commercial accounts within the City is now subject to and shall remain under the authority of the WUTC and that, pursuant to state law, Yakima Waste Systems, Inc , shall, under its WUTC authority, continue to provide garbage and refuse collection and disposal services to all commercial accounts within the City, including such accounts in the Occidental Annexation area, and WHEREAS, RCW 35 13.280 requires the City to provide specific notice to the WUTC regarding the City's intent, pursuant to RCW 81 77 020, and subject to the provisions of RCW 35 13.280, to provide residential refuse collection and disposal service to the Occidental Annexation area, and WHEREAS, pursuant to due and legal notice, the City Council held a public hearing on said annexation on March 6, 2007 and, as a result thereof, finds 1 The annexation petition requirements of RCW 35 13 120 have been satisfied through a combination of annexation petitions and outside utility agreement annexation covenants signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Occidental Annexation area 2 The Occidental Annexation area should be annexed to the City of Yakima 3 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be concluded between the City of Yakima and Yakima County concerning the reimbursement of certain road 11111 11111 1111111111111 7556767 Page 2 of 13 94/99/M7 83 39P YAKIMR COUNTY PLANNING DE ORO *44i991I Yakima Co, WA 3 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be concluded between the City of Yakima and Yakima County concerning the reimbursement of certain road improvement costs incurred by Yakima County Conversely the County will transfer to the City certain monies previously received for the improvement of Coolidge Avenue The amounts concerned have been discussed and will be formalized in the forthcoming MOU 4 The Occidental Annexation area should be zoned R-1, Single-family residential pursuant to the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Map and that such zoning and classification is in accord with the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the General Plan of the City of Yakima 5 The owners of the real property within the Occidental Annexation area should be required to assume their pro rata share of the existing indebtedness of the City of Yakima. 6 The needs of the City and community do require the hereinafter set forth zoning classification, and the highest and best use for said property is as hereinafter determined NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON Section 1. The property identified on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and legally described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, referred to below as the "Occidental Annexation," is hereby annexed to the City of Yakima, Washington Section 2. The owners of the real property within the Occidental Annexation area shall be required to assume their pro rata share of the existing indebtedness of the City of Yakima. Section 3. The Occidental Annexation area is hereby zoned R-1, Single-family residential as it is currently zoned and depicted on the official zoning map for the unincorporated portion of the Yakima Urban Area which map is maintained in the Yakima County Planning Department and which map is incorporated herein by reference Section 4. The next regularly amended Zoning District Map prepared by and for the City of Yakima shall show the Occidental Annexation zoned R-1 Single-family residential and located within the jurisdiction of the City of Yakima Section 5. A Memorandum of Understanding shall be concluded between the City of Yakima and Yakima County that provides for the reimbursement and/or assumption of certain road costs, as previously determined, that were incurred for the construction of new roads. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the County Auditor of Yakima County and with the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Washington, and to transmit a certified copy of this ordinance to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to notify it of the City's intent, pursuant to § 81 77 020 RCW, and subject to the provisions of § 35 13.280 RCW, to provide residential refuse collection and disposal service to the Occidental Annexation area Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide, as required by RCW 35 13.270, notification by certified mail that includes a list of the Assessor's Tax r---j.r_ . �., �. .1."1 ,'T '"T„' - Pill M I IN 1111 111 7556767 Page 3 of 13 G4/99/2997 93 39P YAK.A COUNTY P_L. ANNiIi N.G X ! 1 OO „$44 99_Yakima Co, WA Parcel numbers of all properties within the Occidental Annexation, to the Yakima County Treasurer and Assessor at least thirty days before the effective date of the annexation Section 8. There is hereby granted to Yakima Waste Systems, Inc., in accordance with and for the term provided by RCW 35 13.280, an exclusive franchise to provide garbage and refuse collection and disposal service to residential properties within the Occidental Annexation area, in accordance with the specific terms of Ordinance Nos. 3220 and 3445 of the City of Yakima and in accordance with the terms of the Franchise Agreement attached to Ordinance No 3220 (amended by Ordinance No 3445) of the City of Yakima Such franchise does not apply to garbage and refuse generated by commercial establishments because the City does not provide or contract for such service The City understands that collection and disposal services to all commercial accounts within the City is now subject to and shall remain under the authority of the WUTC and that, pursuant to state law, Yakima Waste Systems, Inc., shall, under its WUTC authority, continue to provide garbage and refuse collection and disposal services to all commercial accounts within the City, including such accounts in the Occidental Annexation area. Section 9. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL at a regular meeting and signed and approved this 6th day of March, 2007 ATTEST City Clerk Publication Date March 9, 2007 Effective Date April 8, 2007 David Edler, Mayor Section 6 above is accepted by Franchisee this Z8 of &Adz,r- , 2007 Yakima Waste Systems, Inc. .ter By' e..er..1// Signer's Name Printed Sca;7- Signer's Title. tom: ,vz,2pt AEA Am ie day 11111 1.111111 11101 1 In 7556767 Page 4 of 13 9410912997 93 39P YAKIMR COUNTY PLANNING DE; 1 , ORO *44 00;0 Yakima Co, WA r r 1 ri i;i 'r, [ r ri i1 i, i t I - CT TT - 1TF �cir UM on ewp( .88 b1$ r OaO ;11,1 r9NINN1d d14101 dWIAO, d6E CO 4062169/be '1aas9P HIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIInIIIYI1119IlII '[Tn Ute+ H I� [� =SAaT rE4TH AVE , to n E 5 g y D m a City of Yakima Occidental Annexation Description November 30, 2006, page 2 revised December 7, 2006 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 'B' BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EXISTING CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST WASHINGTON AVENUE WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W M., THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W M., THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 4 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 401.2 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH 64TH AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH 6414 AVENUE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, I n 1556 660 13 84%8912887 83 33P YAKIMA COUNiY ;PLANNING DE� 'j�� ORD i X44 88,i Yakima Co, WA City of Yakima Occidental Annexation Description November 30, 2006, page 2 revised December 7, 2006 Page 2 of 4 THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OCCIDENTAL AVENUE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT "B" OF THAT CERTAIN SHORT PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK "B" OF SHORT PLATS PAGE 25, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH, EAST, AND SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT "B" TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT "A" OF SAID SHORT PLAT TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 18, EAST, W M., THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 IN SAID SECTION 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAWKEYE ADDITION TO YAKIMA COUNTY, PHASE 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 9, 2004, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO 7427682, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID HAWKEYE ADDITION TO YAKIMA COUNTY, PHASE 2, TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2 OF THAT CERTAIN SHORT PLAT RECORDED APRIL 26, 1984, IN BOOK 84 OF SHORT PLATS PAGE 87, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SHORT PLAT TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, AND THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SAID SECTION 6, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN SHORT PLAT RECORDED NOVEMBER 9, 2005, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO 7481253, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SHORT PLAT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SHORT PLAT TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH 86TH AVENUE, THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 86TH AVENUE TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AHTANUM ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AHTANUM ROAD, AND SAID LINE EXTENDED, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RIDGEWAY ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RIDGEWAY ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 17 EAST, W.M., 1101111 11 1111 11101 111111 7566767 Page, 7 of 13 941991 887 03 39P YAKIMA,COUMYYPI.ANNINO DEQ; ,I ORO,y, $44 991 Yakima Co, WA City of Yakima Occidental Annexation Description November 30, 2006, page 2 revised December 7, 2006 Page 3 of 4 THENCE NORTH TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SAID SECTION 1, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 886 FEET THEREOF, THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3 TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OCCIDENTAL AVENUE TO THE EXTENDED WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 17 EAST, W M., THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH 96TH AVENUE, THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH 96TH AVENUE TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COOLIDGE AVENUE, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COOLIDGE AVENUE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COOLIDGE ROAD; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COOLIDGE ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W M., THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EXISTING CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, _ T c.: ;! !r nr 7. !r n r 11 1111 11111111 111 1111 7556767 Page 8 of 13 041891:887 03 39P YAKIMA COUNTY PLANNING DC ORO $44 d8, Yakima Co, WA �� City of Yakima Occidental Annexation Description November 30, 2006, page 2 revised December 7, 2006 Page 4 of 4 THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE EXISTING CORPORATE LIMITS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 220 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32, THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 183 FEET OF SAID LAST MENTIONED SUBDIVISION, THENCE EAST TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH 72ND AVENUE, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA SOUTH TO THE EXTENDED SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WEST WASHINGTON AVENUE, THENCE CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA AND THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WEST WASHINGTON AVENUE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W M AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING Yakima County Public Works Department Checked for accuracy of legal description only Kent L. McHenry, P E. Transportation Engineer g Manager 111111111 1 MI 1111 7556767 Page 9 o4 13 94/99/2967 63 39P YAKIMA COUNTY, PLANNING DE ; It ORDud Yakima Co, WA OCCIDENTAL ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBERS 17-426111065 18133231405 18133243009 —47420144401— 18133231406 18133243012 "'-0;-4 ;402— 18133231407 18133243400 17120112005 18133231408 18133243401 17120112006 18133233401 18133243402 17120112401 18133233402 18133243403 17120112403 18133233403 18133243404 17120112404 18133233404 18133243405 17120112405 18133233405 18133243406 17120112406 18133233406 18133243407 17120113011 18133233407 18133243408 17120113403 18133233408 18133243409 17120114003 18133233409 18133243410 17120114004 18133233410 16133243411 17120114006 18133233411 18133243412 17120114007 18133233413 18133243413 17120114402 18133233414 18133243414 18120511001 18133233415 18133243415 18120513009 18133233416 18133243416 18120611003 18133233417 18133243417 18120611403 18133233435 18133243418 18120612402 18133233436 18133243419 18120612404 18133234001 18133243420 18120612405 18133234002 18133243421 18120612412 18133234003 18133243422 18120621001 18133234007 18133243423 18120621005 18133234008 18133243424 18120621007 18133234010 18133243425 18120621401 18133234019 18133243426 18120621402 18133234020 18133243427 18120622002 18133234021 18133243428 18120623004 18133234022 18133243429 18120623005 18133234023 18133243430 18120623013 18133234401 18133243431 18120623014 18133234402 18133243432 18120623017 18133234403 18133243433 18133131005 18133234404 18133243434 18133142004 18133241001 18133243435 18133143003 18133241002 18133243436 18133143402 18133241003 18133243437 18133144003 18133241004 18133243438 18133144401 18133241005 18133243439 18133144402 18133241006 18133244005 18133224462 18133241439 18133244006 18133231001 18133242001 18133244007 18133231002 18133243001 18133244009 18133231003 18133243002 18133244401 18133231004 18133243003 18133244472 18133231005 18133243004 18133244473 18133231008 18133243005 18133331002 7556767 111111 Page 19 of 13 04/89/2887 83 39P YWI(IMR COUNTY PLANNING DE ( ORD $44 89) Yakima Co, WR OCCIDENTAL ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBERS 18133331004 17120113012 18120622009 18133331006 17120113013 18120623006 18133331013 17120113014 18120623007 18133331401 17120114011 18120623008 18133331411 17120114012 18120623019 18133331414 17120114013 18120623022 18133331415 17120114401 18120623023 18133331416 17120124004 18120623024 18133332403 17120124005 18120624511 18133332404 17120124006 18120624512 18133332405 17133644401 18120624513 18133332406 17133644402 18133131411 18133333001 18120612416 18133131412 18133333004 18120612417 18133131413 18133333014 18120612418 18133131414 18133333016 18120612419 18133131415 18133333017 18120612420 18133131416 18133333019 18120612421 18133131417 18133333023 18120612422 18133131418 18133333024 18120612423 18133131419 18133333026 18120612424 18133131420 18133333027 18120612425 18133131421 18133333028 18120612426 18133131422 18133333029 18120612427 18133131423 18133333030 18120612428 18133131424 18133333031 18120612429 18133131425 18133333032 18120612430 18133131426 18133333033 18120612431 18133131427 18133333035 18120612432 18133131428 18133334003 18120612433 18133131429 18133334004 18120612434 18133131430 18133334006 18120612437 18133131431 18133334007 18120612438 18133131432 18133334009 18120612439 18133131433 17120111003 18120612440 18133131434 17120111006 18120612441 18133131435 17120111007 18120612442 18133131436 17120111403 18120612443 18133131437 17120111404 18120612444 18133133002 17120111405 18120612445 18133133401 17120111406 18120612446 18133133402 17120111407 18120612447 18133133403 17120111408 18120612448 18133133404 17120111409 18120612449 18133133405 17120111410 18120612450 18133133406 17120111411 18120612451 18133133407 17120111412 18120612452 18133133408 17120111413 18120612453 18133133409 17120111414 18120622007 18133133410 17120112004 18120622008 18133133411 101 111 11 1 11 11111 1 MI 1111 7556767 Page 11 of 13 9418912607 A3 39P YAKIMA COUNTY `PLANNING BOE � ORD u'$44 98; Yakima Co, WA OCCIDENTAL ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBERS 18133133412 18133134460 18133233007 18133133413 18133134461 18133233008 18133133414 18133134462 18133233010 18133133415 18133134463 18133233421 18133133416 18133134464 18133233422 18133133417 18133134465 18133233423 18133133418 18133134466 18133233424 18133133419 18133134467 18133233425 18133133420 18133134468 18133233426 18133133421 18133134469 18133233427 18133133422 18133134470 18133233428 18133133423 18133134471 18133233429 18133133424 18133134472 18133233430 18133133425 18133134473 18133233431 18133133426 18133134474 18133233432 18133133427 18133134475 18133233433 18133133428 18133134476 18133233434 18133133429 18133134477 18133244002 18133133430 18133134478 18133244411 18133133431 18133134479 18133244412 18133133432 18133134480 18133244413 18133133433 18133134481 18133244414 18133133434 18133134482 18133244415 18133133435 18133134483 18133244416 18133133436 18133134484 18133244417 18133133437 18133134485 18133244418 18133133438 18133134486 18133244419 18133133439 18133134487 18133244420 18133133440 18133142003 18133244421 18133133441 18133143401 18133244422 18133133442 18133143403 18133244423 18133133443 18133143404 18133244424 18133133444 18133143405 18133244425 18133133445 18133143406 18133244426 18133133446 18133143407 18133244427 18133134400 18133143408 18133244428 18133134401 18133143409 18133244429 18133134447 18133143410 18133244430 18133134448 18133143411 18133244431 18133134449 18133143412 18133244432 18133134450 18133143413 18133244433 18133134451 18133143414 18133244434 18133134452 18133143415 18133244435 18133134453 18133143416 18133244436 18133134454 18133143417 18133244437 18133134455 18133144002 18133244438 18133134456 18133233003 18133244439 18133134457 18133233004 18133244440 18133134458 18133233005 18133244441 18133134459 18133233006 18133244442 11010 11111 1110111 11 1 111111 11111111 7556767 Page 12 of 13 64/A9/2AA7 3 39P YAKIMA COURT? PLANNING DEQ DRD j �44,9A Yakima Co, WA 1' lug n i.__ III �� ���� 1 J 1 .. l IL .tl Il.l I OCCIDENTAL ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBERS 18133244443 18133333416 18133244444 18133333417 18133244445 18133333418 18133244446 18133333419 18133244447 18133333420 18133244448 18133333423 18133244449 18133333424 18133244450 18133333425 18133244451 18133333426 18133244452 18133333427 18133244453 18133333428 18133244454 18133333429 18133244455 18133333430 18133244456 18133333431 18133244457 18133333432 18133244458 18133333433 18133244459 18133333434 18133244460 18133333435 18133244461 18133333436 18133244462 18133333437 18133244463 18133333438 18133244464 18133244465 18133244466 18133244467 18133244468 18133244469 18133244470 18133244471 18133331014 18133331015 18133331016 18133331017 18133331018 18133332407 18133332408 18133332409 18133333401 18133333404 18133333405 18133333406 18133333407 18133333408 18133333409 18133333410 18133333411 18133333412 18133333413 18133333414 18133333415 111111111111111111111111111111 7556767 111 Page 13 of 13 6416912667 63 39P YAKIMA COUNTY PLANNING DE 1' i OR $44 66; Yakima Co, WA BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 7 For Meeting Of: March 6, 2007 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Reconsideration of the Occidental Annexation SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director of Community Economic Development CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Bruce Benson, Supervising Planner, 575-6042 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Occidental Annexation was initiated on November 21, 2006 by a unanimous vote of the Yakima City Council. This followed a November 6th meeting of the Council Economic Development Committee which had met to review the revenues and expenses projected for this annexation. Following this discussion the Committee voted to recommend the initiation of this annexation to the Council as a whole. Background Washington State law requires that an annexation must be effective on March 1st of any given year if the annexing city wishes to receive real estate property taxes beginning January 1st of the following year. This being the case a special public (continued) Resolution Ordinance X Contract _ Other (Specify) Supplemental Reports, Maps, BRB letter of January 29, 2007 Funding Source N/A APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: - �.�..,.. City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Petition No 06-15 for the Occidental Annexation and adopt the ordinance. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: There being no request that the Yakima County Boundary Review Board invoke jurisdiction this annexation was deemed approved on January 26, 2007 (see enclosed letter). COUNCIL ACTION: hearing was held on Friday, January 23, 2007 with the idea that if approved the annexation would become effective on February 26, 2007 and thereby assure that the City would receive taxes for serving this area beginning in 2008. Following the closure of this hearing a motion was made and seconded to deny the annexation. There was a tie vote on this motion and with one Councilmernber out of town at the time there was not the seventh vote necessary to break the tie. Accordingly the annexation was not approved and no further motions were made at that time. The rules of order for Council hearings provide that the dissenting voters on a particular motion may request the reconsideration of that motion. The dissenting voters in this case had voted against the denial of the annexation and they subsequently did request reconsideration at the February 6th meeting when it was decided to set March 6, 20n7 as the date for this hearing. The Oncidental Annexation area currently consists of 521 lots or tax parcels. Of these, 390 have petitioned for annexation, and these 390 properties represent 75.89% of the annexation area's total assessed value. Under the petition annexation method set forth in RCW 35.13.125, petitions from the owner's of 75% of the area's assessed value qualifies this area for annexation should the council so desire. The total assessed value of this proposed annexation is $88,722,050. The City and the County have agreed on a formula to reimburse the County for certain road improvement costs incurred by Yakima County. Conversely the County will transfer to the City certain monies previously received by the County for the improvement of Coolidge Avenue. These agreements will be memorialized in a memorandum of understanding between the parties if and when this annexation is approved by the City r-r" Under the terms of RCN 35.13.130 and 35.13.140 the City Council may hold a public hearing to entertain and consider the approval or disapproval of a proposed annexation when petitions for annexation have been received by the city, signed by owners of not less than 75 % in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned. The city has met that threshold and the fact is supported by the determination The annexation ordinance will include a statement concerning the annexed area's obligation to assume its portion of the city's bonded indebtedness, and that the zoning classification of the proposed annexation area will be R-1, Single -Family Residential. Currently the City's bonded debt adds $.0643 per one thousand dollars of assessed valuc-: ($6.-43 rm $10n,onn). Conclusion: Since 1976 the City and County of Yakima have agreed on the future growth boundary of the City of Yakima. Ever since that date the City of Yakima has committed city tax payer and utility rate payer resources to me -et our commitment to serve this area The City of Yakima is better prepared to provide the urban services needed for this growing area including: 1. Fire response time several minutes faster than West Valley Station # 2, plus specialized services and teams. 2. Police coverage at a rate of one officer per 4.1 square miles versus sheriffs deputy coverage at one deputy per 90 square mile. 3. City public works and engineering staff have built most and maintain the majority of urban streets that connect the proposed annexation area to jobs, shopping, recreation and interstate highway connections throughout the state and country. 4. Wastewater utility has invested millions of rate payer dollars to expand the treatment plant and extend the utility lines to serve this urbanizing area. The City's commitment to serve has been given in return for an agreement / promise to annex. Today's annexation represents the culmination and fulfillment of those promises. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY IIEVIEW. BOARD. FORYAKIMA COUNTY. . 128: North Second Street . .Fourth Floor -Courthouse .:Yakima, Washington 98901, (509)574-2300 • FAX (509) 574-2301 Bruce Benson City of Yaki , a 128 N: SecondStreet Yakima, -WA 98901 File No. BRB 2006-008 - Occidental Annexation Dear Mr. Benson: - This is to notify you=that the 45: dayfiling period lapsed on January 26, 2007 for your "Notice of Intention" on -the above annexation: In order, 'to expedite the final -filing process, .please mail or bring me an original .of your final ordinance along with the fling fee of $32.00 for the first page and $1:00 for each additional page The Auditor's Office has certain requirements for recording documents (i.e; original signature & seal pages-; with a 1" margin on all sides) Don't forget to include the; cover page for filing purposes which includes all parcel numbers. Please make your= :check payable to "Yakima County". Be sure the -final ordinance contains the following; > Effective date of annexation >-.. Initiator's seal & notarized, > .A :map of the annexation. area. > Signed and dated final approval of the legal description by the Engineering Services Manager from the Public Works Department. We will file the ordinance with the County Auditor and distribute the copies for you. The original recorded ordinance will be . returned to you :within a week after it has been microfilmed and checked.- If you have any questions, please give me a call. • Sincerely, C. J. GATT Chief Clerk of the Board G:IUSERS\A FORMSIBRB final letter.doc Occidental Annexation Supplemental Reports 1. Memorandum for Assistant City Manager 2. Report from Police on staffing and response time differences between city and county • Law enforcement coverage area 3. Report from Fire on staffing and response time differences between city and county. 4. Report from Finance on anticipated revenues and expenses. 5. Questions and Answers on annexation process and philosophy. 6. Chart showing increases in assessed value for past annexation areas. 7. Report from Legal covering the legal process and requirements for petition annexations. 8. Copy of 1993 Supreme Court Decision on petition annexations. 9. Report from Public Works on service delivery 10. Report from Wastewater on sewer extension history and city investment in providing sewer service to unincorporated areas. 11. Report from Legal on Public Safety Committee's recommendation concerning the discharge of firearms for agricultural purposes. 12. Report from Engineering on LID formation. 13. Copies of Outside Utility Agreements signed by Apple Tree Partnership. Maps • Annexation history of Yakima • Location of existing sewer lines • Sewer connections since May 2001 • Future Land Use Map showing annexation area • Parcels with petitions MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager Date: March 6, 2007 Re: Occidental Annexation Annexation is one of a City Council's largest and most complicated policy issues. With all annexations there are numerous factors to consider, the same is true of this one. The vast majority of the issues and analysis associated with the Occidental Annexation are included in your materials, or will be brought to your attention by the proponents and opponents of this proposal. A question seldom contemplated, from the perspective of a City, when an annexation is under consideration is: What are the impacts to the community of not going forward with an annexation? In this case this question is even more critical due to the apparent rapid transition from lower density land uses to what will become a very urbanized part of the community over the next several years. You will note in the materials that, from a public safety standpoint, if annexed there will certainly be improvements to response times for police, fire and EMS emergencies. Should annexation not occur, the City of Yakima is still impacted as the Yakima Fire and Police Departments will continue to respond to the area per the agreed upon protocol with the Fire District and Yakima Sheriffs office - at a cost to Yakima residents and property owners. Likewise with transportation, the Occidental annexation area gains access to the lion's share of retail opportunities, employment centers, and major highways by utilizing the City of Yakima's street system. The Yakima street system is planned and built to accommodate traffic generated by areas outside the City limits, yet only those residents and properties within the City limits fund these improvements. Similarly the cost of maintaining the City's transportation system is funded by residents and property owners from within the City limits The question is often asked, Why not wait for the area to urbanize, then annex? A major drawback to this approach is that the properties that develop will do so with other than City standards, and may not be built to an urban standard. Likewise, opportunities for comprehensive development of parks, open space, transportation corridors, CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), etc. are then lost. It is difficult, costly and often times impossible to address these kinds of issues once the area is built out. The key message is that the annexation area as it exists today already impacts City services and infrastructure and as such enjoys a current subsidy from the residents and property owners of the City, as the area increases in density those impacts and the corresponding subsidy will continue to increase. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FM: Cindy Epperson, Financial Services Manager SUBJ: Timing of Annexation Revenue Receipts For each major annexation that the City undertakes, staff prepares a comprehensive report on what revenues can be expected to be generated by the annexation and what additional expenditures would be needed to service the new annexation area. That report was prepared for the Occidental Annexation. However, the delay in the effective date changes the timing of when the revenue begins. The following narrative explains when each of the revenue sources will begin: Property Tax—Generally, the Property Tax levy has the longest "lead time" in relation to annexation revenue. Property taxes are levied on the "officially established boundaries" that exist on March 1 of the yearof the levy (RCW 84.09.030). Then the levy actually takes place in November of that year. Therefore, property taxes on annexations effective after March 1 would not be levied until the next year. In the case of Occidental Annexation, the annexations would be added in the November, 2008 levy for taxes collected in 2009. County Road Tax—Upon annexation a city does receive the revenue from the levied but uncollected county road tax districts (RCW 35.13.270). This "switchover" can begin on the effective date of the annexation if the city formally notifies the county treasurer and assessor of the annexation at least 30 days before the effective date. Since these taxes are collected in April and October, an effective date that results in a formal notification at the end of March could result in only the second half of the levy being received, even though the Streets Department would be required to serve the area immediately. It should be noted that the County Road Tax is less than the Property Tax by about 90 cents/$1000 Assessed Value, or about $95,000 annually. Also, the state law requires that this tax be used for street maintenance purposes. State Shared Revenues—This category includes primarily gasoline tax, liquor board profits, and liquor excise tax, and are distributed to cities on the basis of population. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) must certify the annexation, after which it notifies the appropriate state agencies of the population change. Because these are distributed quarterly, the state agencies need notification at least 30 days prior to the beginning of a quarter. Additionally, the larger the annexation, the longer the lead time OFM requires to review the submission by the city and complete its certification. For example, an annexation effective in March would need about 1 month for OFM to certify, and 1 month for applicable agencies to change their calculations. Therefore, the earliest the City would receive state shared revenue is the 3`tI quarter. Sales and Use Tax—RCW 82.14.005 governs the rules for sales tax changes, which include annexations. Sales tax changes can take effect only on the first day of a quarter. Additionally, the law requires that local governments notify the Department of Revenue (DOR) at least 75 days before the change takes place. Therefore, to maximize sales tax receipts from a newly annexed area, the effective date should be the first day of a quarter, with at least 75 days (2 ' months) lead time for DOR notification. With the 2 month lag time from collection, (i.e. July transactions are reported to DOR in August, and remitted to the City in September), the earliest the City would see sales tax receipts. from the Occidental annexation would be September. Utility Taxes—We are not aware of any state laws governing notification of outside utilities. Because of the processing time needed to make the changes in the billing system, and the 1 month lag time from collection of the tax by the utility company to remittance to the City, there could be from a 2 to 3 month delay in the receipt of the first utility tax from the date of notification of the utilities. The City's internal utility billing system would be modified to match the effective date of the annexation as closely as possible. 3/2. Occidental Annexation Projected Revenue $0.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Assessed Value: Increase = 1% / yr + 40/50 new homes 6 $288,000 each $88,722,050 $105,819,900 $120,219,900 $131,739,900 $143,259,900 Estimated Population 723 848 973 1,073 1,173 Property taxes © $3.12/$1000 assumes 0% increase in tax rate in the five-year period $0.00 $0 $375,086 $411,028 $446,971 One time County Road Tax (assumes 75% in 2007 if effective date of April 9) $148,388 $234,920 $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 Utility Taxes (6 mos in 2007) 60 (non-sewered) © $225 / 230 (existing sewered) © $224 and New @ $334 $36,685 $90,070 $106,770 $120,130 $133,490 State shared revenue 2.5 / house © $29.99/person $21,960 $25,710 $29,460 $32,460 $35,460 Sales tax + permit fees © $4,500 / new unit + Commercial Sales tax © $19,000 (4 mos on Comm. Sales in 2007) $231,500 $244,000 $244,000 $199,000 $199,000 New Units per year (50) (50) (50) (40) (40) General Gov't Annual Total $438,533 $594,700 $755,316 $762,618 $814,921 Other Revenues Arterial Street Gas Tax $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 REET 2 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $19,200 $19,200 E.M.S. Levy Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown The E.M.S. levy would be affected by population/number of calls, but how the distribution would be affected is unknown. REET 1 Tax $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $19,200 $19,200 Bonded Debt Transit $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Annual Total $101,975 $101,975 $101,975 $92,375 $92,375 There are approximately 470 developable Tots in this area. The City can expect to receive one time revenue of sales tax and building permit fees on construction of new homes ($4,500 per home). cje 3/2/2007 Occidental Annexation Expenses 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Police Officer mos $45,000 1 $90,000 1 $90,000 2 $180,000 2 $180,000 Firefighter os $45,000 1 $90,000 1 $90,000 2 $180,000 2 $180,000 Planner1(40% funded by Occidental Annex.) 6 mos $14,000 1 $28,000 1 $28,000 1 $28,000 1 $28,000 BuildingInspector (40% funded by Occidental Annex.) $0.00 6 mos $13,000 1 $26,000 1 $26,000 1 $26,000 Steet employees mos $33,000 2 $88,000 2 $88,000 2 $88,000 2 $88,000 City/County Ramp Down Agreement $42,000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Street Maintenance Expenses $74,000 $72,000 $72,000 $67,200 $67,200 PW Capital Equipment $128,736 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Parks -West Valley Park Maintenance $7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Criminal Justice / Safe Community Action Plan $15,000 $75,000 $75,000 $90,000 $150,000 Contingency/Reserve $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 General Gov't Annual Total $429,236 $521,000 $534,000 $724,200 $784,200 Transit (Dial -a -Ride and other enhancements) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Arterial Streets $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 $3,975 Annual Total -Other Funds $53,975 $53,975 $53,975 $53,975 $53,975 Rural Policing vs. Urban Policing in Upper Yakima County Patrol Staffing: Yakima County: four to five deputies per shift for the entire Upper County, which consists of 360 square miles. At the low end of the range of available deputies per shift, one deputy covers approximately 90 square miles. 90 sq. miles/county deputy City of Yakima: six to fifteen officers per shift in an area of 25 square miles (this does not include specialized resources listed below). This gives us a big advantage for emergency situations that require two or more officers to respond. At the low end of the range of available officers per shift, one officer covers approximately 4.1 square miles. 4.1 sq. miles/city police officer Specialized Patrol Resources Not Found in Rural Sheriff's Agencies: Full Time Motorcycle Traffic Enforcement Unit Emergency Response Team (SWAT) Police K-9 Unit Gang Enforcement Unit Technology Designed to Speed Service to Urban Areas: GPS Equipped Patrol Cars for Closest Vehicle Dispatch Opticom Equipped Patrol Cars for Quicker Response in Congested Areas SG neo MAVLLWAY KD (1) 0 co 0) s.t RIVER RD AVO w 2 EN WOOD A w z TIETON DR QSUMMITV co cn W LINCOLN AVE z dO IEW AVE z �P's‘ ��� TERRACE HGTS DR 0 w Lu 0 w a DAZET RD HOLLOW 2D ZIER ' D W NOB HILL BLVD w 1- WASHINGTON AVE m 0) w RT RD 0 z N AHTANUM RD w 1- A 0) w W MEAD AV 0) S 3RD AVE 1- E MEAD AVE' 1- 1- (1) 0) GUN CLUB RD CO 44/ W AHTANUM RD co z 2 MIERAS RD BEAUDRY RD BEAUDRY RD City of Yakima Individual Law Enforcement Officer Coverage Areas Legend ■ Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Annexation Area Rivers City: One Officer per 4.1 sq mi County: One Officer per 90 sq mi s 4,200 2,100 0 4,200 Feet Created: 02/26/2007 11 wgr1.II i 111 .1119111 imp 41/4, 11h!] e'L' 111.1� ti,LlA.n 4411 �., Ila•B� 111 a; ',.Lll��nl �.1�1■ Occidental Annexation Annexation Area Urban Reserve Growth Boundary 0.100 Yakima City Limits Area: Approx. 1.033 apes 0 1000 2000 amt.,* Pebramp *1007 Occidental Annexation Area Coverage There are several points to consider when addressing the Fire Department coverage of the Occidental Annexation area. 1. The City has invested almost 1 million dollars remodeling the fire station on Tieton Drive to make it usable for a full time staff of 3 persons 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Within a year a $490,000 pumper will be placed at this station also. This investment in coverage to citizens west of 64th avenue has been taking place for over a year now. 2. When comparing response times to this area, you have to consider 3 things. • First is the actual response time from dispatch to arrival of a full compliment of personnel to mitigate the incident. • Second is the response time of a second crew to allow interior firefightingand safety. • Third is the consistency of these response times. There is an expectation by the public that a call for help will be met in a consistent manor. Considering that a structure fire will double in size every minute, consistency is a major consideration. 3. Emergency responses are not the only service provided by the fire department to the Occidental area. Any citizen paying taxes for Fire protection to the City of Yakima is provided with the following: • Professional investigation services with 2 fire marshals, 3 commissioned investigators, and 9 Washington State Certified Fire Investigators. • Coverage by the Tri -county regional Haz-Mat team. Including all equipment for mitigation and 12 technicians. • A technical Rescue team trained and equipped for High angle, confined space, and trench rescue. • Staffed public education division Annexation Questions: 1. Is annexation without a vote democratic? What could be more rational and democratic than putting citizens within the urban area in direct control of their City government, its programs, and their costs? We all elect the members of the state legislature who establish public policy with respect to how local government is organized in our State. Current annexation law was enacted to create a logical and predictable process by which cities can grow and provide service to new residential, commercial and industrial development. 2. Why can't we vote on annexation? At the time wastewater service was requested, the property owner committed his/her property to annexation through the petition method. The City has spent some $8.5 million net of payments received to increase the capacity of the treatment plan and extend lines and collectors to serve the annexation area. This investment was made based upon the commitment of property owners to join the City in the future. The City has fulfilled its commitment. 3. Will the City require connection to City sewer? No, the Yakima County Health District determines when and under what circumstances someone must connect to public sewer. 4. Will annexation affect my children's school? No, annexation has no impact on school boundaries and operations. 5. Will my taxes go up? No, they will remain the same or go down slightly. 6. How will my tax dollars be spent? For personnel/equipment and services for your community. 7. Will fire rates go up to areas outside the annexation area? In fact, fire rates west of the annexation area may actually go down because of the mutual aid agreement between the City and West Valley Fire District #12. 8. Why should I have to pay for the City' s problems? I moved to the County to get away from the City. We all live in one community. We need to work and invest together to solve the "community's" problems. The health of our region is directly tied to the health of the City of Yakima. We are all in this together. Comparison of the Increases in Value for the City as a Whole and the Last Three Large Annexations Of the two charts below, Chart 1 shows the increase in assessed value for the three annexations listed from the date of annexation until now. Chart 2 shows the increase in value for the entire city minus the three listed annexations. Over the five years indicated the aggregated value of the three annexation areas has increased over 30% while the city as a whole has risen only 10%. This indicates a 6% annual growth rate for the annexation areas and a 2% growth rate for the remainder of the city. The three times higher growth rate for the annexation areas is a direct result of the City of Yakima's extension of sewer service prior to annexation. CHART I Annexation Date Assessed Value Current Percentage (a Annexation Value of Chancre 72"d Avenue 1/04/02 $306,789,400 $416,008,750 35% Englewood 7/10/05 $172,895,650 $194,639,200 11% 96th Avenue 2/28/06 $61,887,100 $89,777,550 45% CHART II Five Year Increase in City Assessed Value Minus the Three Annexations Percentage 2002 2007 of Chancre $3,156,055,363 $3,469,314,000 10% PETITION ANNEXATIONS The most frequently used method of annexing territory in first and second class cities and in towns is by petition of the owners of at least 75 percent of the property value in the area, computed according to the assessed valuation of the property in the proposed annexation area for general taxation purposes. A. Initiation of the 75 Percent Petition Annexation (RCW 35.13.125) A petition annexation is initiated by written notice to the City Council of the intention to commence annexation proceedings. This notice may be signed by either: 1. Not less than ten percent of the residents of the area proposed to be annexed; 2. Owners of not less than ten percent of the value of the property for which annexation is petitioned, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation purposes; or 3. The board of directors of a school district. RCW 28A.335.110. B. Meeting on the Annexation Proposal (RCW 35.13.125) After being notified of the proposed annexation, the City Council is to set a date (within 60 days after the filing of the notice) for a meeting with the initiating parties to determine: 1. Whether the city will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. Whether it will require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan, if such a plan has been prepared and filed as provided for in RCW 35.13.177 and 35.13.178; and 3. Whether it will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. If the Council requires simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan or the assumption of indebtedness, it is to record this action in its meeting minutes. The decision of the Council whether to "accept" the proposed annexation is entirely within the Council's discretion. By accepting the .proposed annexation, the Council is not committing itself to ultimately annexing the territory proposed when a sufficient petition is presented to it. The decision to accept merely allows the annexation to go forward procedurally with further contact and meetings with the citizens in the area and preparation of the final annexation boundaries. If the Council rejects the proposed annexation, the initiating parties have no right of appeal. E. Decision (RCW 35.13.150) 1. Cities in Counties Having Boundary Review Boards Since a city in a county with a boundary review board may not annex territory without prior review board approval (unless the board determines, for certain proposals, that review is not necessary, or the board's jurisdiction is not invoked in the manner described above), an annexation ordinance passed following a hearing but before board review cannot yet be effective. Consequently, cities in counties requiring action by a boundary review board adopt the ordinance after receiving board approval or they first pass a motion or resolution of intent to annex. If the review board approves the annexation, the formal ordinance is adopted. F. Legal Sufficiency of the Petition (RCW 35.21.005) Within three working days of the filing of the petition with the city, the petition must be transmitted to the county assessor for a determination of sufficiency. RCW 35.21.005. The officer whose duty it is to determine petition sufficiency must file with the city officer who received the petition a certificate stating the date on which the determination was begun. This date, called the "terminal date," is the cut-off point for adding signatures to or withdrawing them from the petition. G. Hearing on Petition (RCW 35.13.140) When a legally sufficient petition is filed with the City Council, the Council may consider it (it is not required to), and: 1. Fix a date for a public hearing, and 2. Provide notice of the hearing by: a. Publishing notice in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and b. Posting notice in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation. The notice must specify the time and place of hearing, and it must invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation. H. Effective Date of Annexation (RCW 35.13.160) The annexation, together with any provisions for the assumption of indebtedness or adoption of a comprehensive plan, takes effect on the date set in the annexation ordinance. 3 PRMLEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COVERED BYTHE ATTORNEY-CUENTAND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Edler, Members of the City Council FROM: Jeff Cutter, Sr. Assistant City Attorney DATE: March 2, 2007 SUBJ: Annexation - Outside Utility Agreements Attached is an excerpt from the Washington Supreme Court case of Fire Protection District v. Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371 (1993), wherein the Court provided a very thorough analysis of the application, effectiveness and legality of a municipality's use of Outside Utility Agreements to provide the necessary representative support from an area subject to annexation. Rather than reiterate the Court's lengthy commentary I have attached the relevant portion of the decision for your review. A brief summary of the Court's conclusions can be stated as follows: 1. It is appropriate and authorized by statute for a municipality to utilize OUA's, essentially contracts between a municipality and its citizens, to impose conditions on the provision of utility services to properties outside of the municipal boundaries. 2. Requiring property owners to agree to annexation in order to receive municipal utility service is a valid waiver of the property owners' right to refuse to sign an annexation petition. 3. An OUA is an offer from a municipality to provide utility services outside of its boundaries in exchange for a promise from the recipient property owner that at such time annexation of the property is proposed the property owner will accede. The OUA thus satisfies the mutual assent required in an enforceable contract. 4. The municipality does not owe a duty of providing utility services to property owners located outside of the municipality's boundaries without an expectation of consideration provided by the property owner in exchange for such services. 5. A municipality's use of OUA's is not a violation of public policy. 6. Requiring property owners located outside a municipality to execute OUA's in exchange for municipal utility services is not a violation of any First Amendment right because (a) the OUA agreement is unambiguous, (b) there has been no credible evidence to support a belief that the OUA was coercive, and (c) the 382 IRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. YAKIMA Sept. 1993 122. Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 area or where a city is the exclusive, supplier of sewer or water service in a region extending beyond the borders of the city. See Barbaccia v. County of Santa Clara, 451 F. Supp. 260, 264 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (commenting that "several state courts have recently held that a city holding itself out as the sole provider of sewer services in a given locale will be considered a public utility and allowed to deny sewer hook- ups to property within its 'service area' only for such utility - related reasons as lack of capacity") (citing Robinson v. Boul- der, 190 Colo. 357, 547 P.2d 228 (1976), overruled by Board of Cy. Comm'rs v. Denver Bd. of Water Comm'rs, 718 P.2d 235, 244 (Colo. 1986); Mayor & Coun. v. Delmarva Enters., Inc., 301 A.2d 276 (Del. 1973)). See also Milwaukee u. Public Serv. Comm'n, 268 Wis. 116, 120, 66 N.W.2d 716 (1954) (explain- ing that "[t]he basic question here is whether appellant has extended its service and is holding itself out to serve in the general area"). The Court of Appeals in Brookens recognized a similar exception. "A contract to supply water may also be found by implication, as where a municipality holds itself out as a public utility willing to supply all those who request service in a general area." (Footnote omitted.) Brookens, at 466' (citing Milwaukee v. Public Serv. Comm'n, supra at 124- 25).. [6] By entering the 4 -party agreement and adopting the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan, which effectively established the City as the sole provider of sewer collection services to areas within the Yakima urban area not already served by Union Gap or the Terrace Heights Sewer District, the City did hold itself out as willing to provide service to the Yakima urban area. However, there is one fact present in this case that was not present in the cases cited above. The agreement that made the City the exclusive supplier of sew- age treatment services, the 1976 4 -party agreement, also set forth the City's policy of requiring present or future annexa- tion as a condition of receiving service. Thus, to the extent that the City held itself out as willing to provide service, it made clear that it was willing to do so only if the landowner accepted its future annexation condition. Cf Brookens v. Sept. 1993 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT V YAHIMA i3 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 Yakima, supra at 467 (holding that "adoption by the City of a 1968 resolution to supply water only when the user complies with the Yakima General Plan for land use clearly manifests an intent not to supply the general area indiscriminately"). The City has no duty to provide service absent the future annexation condition,; and the inclusion of this condition does not render the OUA's improper or invalid. [7] Alternatively, appellants argue that the City had a duty to provide sewer service to appellant landowners because the primary source of funding for. the upgrade of the City's treat- ment plant was the federal government. However, appellants cite no legal authority to support this proposition. For that reason, we will not consider it. State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 661, 845 A2d 289 (1993). The third issue in this case is whether the City had author- ity to enter the OUA's. As a general matter, "[m]unicipal cor- porations ... may .... contract". RCW 35.21.010. Appellants argue, however, that the City did not have authority to enter the OUA's because it failed to enact an ordinance prior to entering the OUA's, as, appellants argue, is required by RCW 35.67.350, which concerns provision of sewer service to per- sons residing outside a city's borders. RCW 35.67.310 pro- vides: Every city or town may permit connections with any of its sewers ... from property beyond its limits, upon such terms, conditions and payments as may be prescribed by ordinance, which may be required by the city or town to be evidenced by a written agreement .... (Italics ours.) The City argues that RCW 35.67.310 should be inter- preted to mean that conditions on sewer service can be im- posed by ordinance or contract. lb support this argument the City relies on the rule of construction that "no part of a statute should be deemed inoperative or superfluous unless it is the result of obvious mistake or error." Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp., 117 Wn.2d 1, 13, 810 P.2d 917, 817 P.2d 1359 (1991). The City insists that its "alternative" interpretation is the only interpretation that gives meaning to all of the third 386 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. YAKIMA Sept. 1993 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 when and under what circumstances prospective annexation were to take place. Doan, at 136. The court's concern was that to permit municipalities to secure waiversyears in advance of annexation would render the terms of the statute meaningless. Common sense would tell us that.a municipality, .whose annex- ation scheme Tailed to satisfy the determinants set forth in the statute, would find no .difficulty in executing it, if it could secure sufficient advance waivers to oust the court's jurisdic- tion. Doan, at 138. [101 The present case can be distinguished from Doan because the OUA's signed by appellant landowners did not require them to waive any of the review procedures provided by. statute. Even if enforcement of the OUA's resulted in the gathering of sufficient signatures on the annexation petition involved in this case, the proposed annexation must go be- fore the boundary review board for mandatory review under RCW 36.93.100 before becoming effective. In addition, if "any person : owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision" wants to appeal the decision of the boundary review board, judicial review is permitted under RCW 36.93- .160(5). The OUA's did not require waiver of this right. The waiver involved in this case relatesonly to a step in the process preceding statutorily mandated review and will not allow the City to avoid review of the proposed .annexation. Thus the concerns motivating the court in Doan are not present in this case. The validity of a waiver of the right to not sign an: annexa- tion petition, executed after initiation of annexation but prior to the filing of a petition for annexation, was considered by the Court of Appeals in People for the Preserv. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. Spokane, 51 Wn. App. 816, 755 P.2d 836 (1988) (Five Mile Prairie). Five Mile Prairie involved contracts under which the City of Spokane provided water service to landowners out- side the city limits in return for the landowners signing con- tracts requiring them to promote and sign .any petitions. for annexation. Although the contracts in Five Mile Prairie were entered before any petition for annexation had been filed, a Sept. 1993 ' FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v YAKIMA 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 387 notice of intention to commence annexation had been filed with the city council and the City of Spokane had agreed to accept annexation subject to stated conditions before the rel- evant contracts were signed. On these facts, the Court of Appeals held that "the covenantors knew the circumstances under which the proposed annexation would take place", and that their waiver was a valid waiver of a known right. Five Mile Prairie, at 823, 824. In Five Mile Prairie, information concerning the areato be annexed, assumption of ' indebtedness, and adoption of a comprehensive plan probably was available when the waiver occurred. Although not expressly discussed in the Court of Appeals opinion in Five Mile Prairie, the notice of intent to commence annexation filed there must have included some indication as to the scope of the proposed annexation be- cause RCW 35.13.125 requires the notice of intent be pre- sented by 10 percent of the . residents "of the area to be annexed" or the owners of 10 percent of the property in the area. In addition, because RCW 35.13.125 requires condi- tions concerning assumption of indebtedness and the adop- tion of a comprehensive plan be indicated by the legislative body of the annexing entity when it considers the proposed annexation, this information probably was available in Five Mile Prairie where "the City had indicated its willingness to accept annexation subject to certain conditions set by the City Plan Commission." (Italics ours.) Five Mile Prairie, at 823. Here, information ,concerning these matters was not avail- able to appellant landowners when they entered their OUA's. Unlike the situation in Five Mile Prairie, no effort at initiating annexation of appellant landowners' property had. occurred before appellant landowners signed their OUA's. The only notice appellant landowners had in this case, con- cerning the City's intent to annex their property, was gen- eral . notice from two resolutions adopted in the 1960's and from the comprehensive plan for the Yakima urban area. However, neither of these sources of generalized notice gave any details concerning the City's annexation plan. 390 IRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v.:YAKIMA Sept. 1993 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 consideration was lacking under the theory that a promise to perform a preexisting duty does notconstitute considera- tion. Boardman v. Dorsett, 38 Wn. App. 338, 341, 685 P.2d 615, review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1006 (1984)... They argue that the City owed appellant landowners a duty to provide sewer service prior to and independent of the contract. This argu- ment is foreclosed by our holding, above, that the City did not have a duty to provide sewer service to appellant land- owners. [18] The Puhrmanns argue that, even if mutual assent and consideration existed, their OUA is void or voidable based on misrepresentation. A fraudulent misrepresentation or, under the right circumstances, even a material innocent misrepre- sentation can render a contract voidable. Skagit State Bank v. Rasmussen, supra at '384 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 164(1) (1981)). The Restatement (Second) of Con- tracts § 164(1) (1981) provides: "If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material mis- representation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient." The dispositive question here is whether the Puhrmanns have' demonstrated that any misrepresentation, in fact, occurred. A misrepresentation is "an assertion that is not in accord with the facts." Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 159 (1981). At her deposition, Mrs. Puhrmann stated that the OUA was presented with the closing documents and that they were told signing the OUA "allowed us to be hooked up to sewer and that all people in the West : Valley area who were on sewer were required to sign it, it was a requirement, it was a requirement of purchase of our house." Clerk's Papers, at 350-51. She further stated that they were told the sale could not go through unless the OUA was signed. The Puhrmanns have not explained how any of these statements were not in accord with the facts. [19] There is ample evidence in this case, in the 1976 4 - party agreement and the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan, that signing an OUA was a requirement of receiving Sept. 1993 FIRE 'PROTECTION DISTRICT v. YAKIMA .I91 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 sewer service from the City. It could also be true that signing the OUA was necessary to closing, in that the lender may have been unwilling to loan money for purchase of a home that was : not going to have sewer service. The burden of establishing the elements of misrepresentation is on the party seeking to have the contract voided. See Skagit State Bank, at 384. The Puhrmanns' failure to present evidence demonstrating an assertion not in accord with the facts sup- ports a holding that no genuine issue of material fact as to misrepresentation has been shown. Therefore, the trial court properly granted the City summary judgment on this issue. [20, 21] The sixth issue is whether the OUA's are void because unconscionable, or void as against public policy. Look- ing first at the doctrine of unconscionability: [T]hose cases interpreting the doctrine appear to fall within two classifications: (1) substantive unconscionability; and (2) proce- dural unconscionability. Substantive unconscionability involves those cases where a clause or, term in the contract is alleged to be one-sided or overly harsh, while procedural unconscionabil- ity relates to impropriety during the process of forming a con- tract.... procedural unconscionability [is] best described as a lack of "meaningful choice." ... consideration must be given to "all the circumstances surrounding the transaction," including "[t]he manner in which the contract was entered," whether each party had "a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract," and whether "the important terms [were] hidden in a maze of fine print ...". (Citations omitted.) Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc., 86 Wn.2d 256, 259-60, 544 P.2d 20 (1975) (quoting Williams v. Walker - Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965)). Al- though the unconscionability issue in Schroeder arose under the Uniform Commercial Code, the above quoted portion as "part of a general exposition on unconscionability", Jeffery v. Weintraub, 32 Wn. App. 536, 542, 648 P.2d 914 (1982) is applic- able beyond the Uniform Commercial Code context. On the issue of substantive unconscionability, appellants argue that it was one sided and overly harsh to impose the annexation requirement on appellant landowners in addition to requiring them to pay for the sewer service. However, we 394 • FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. YAHIMA Sept. 1993 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 Appellants also argue that the OUA's are void as against public policy. However, because appellants failed to present any legal authority or argument on this issue, we decline to consider the issue. State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 661, 845 P.2d 289 (1993). [23] Appellants' final argument is that the provision in their OUA's, which requires them to promote annexation in addition to signing an annexation petition, violates appellant landowners' free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. We will assume that appellant landowners' free speech rights are implicated by the requirement that they actively promote annexation. The general rule as to a govern- ment action that imposes a restraint on a First Amendment freedom is that it "comes into court bearing a heavy presump- tion against its constitutionality." Fine Arts Guild, Inc. v. Seat- tle, 74 Wn.2d 503, 506, 445 P.2d 602. (1968). However, this court has stated that " '[wle are of the opinion the right of freedom of speech is not absolute.' " Fine Arts Guild, Inc., at 512 (quoting Shively v. Garage Employees Local Union 44, 6 Wn.2d 560, 567, 108 P.2d 354 (1940)). In addition, we have held: "Constitutional rights can be waived." In re Adoption of Jackson, 89 Wn.2d 945, 952, 578 P.2d 33 (1978). The City relies on a waiver argument lo support the OUA's. [24] It is not easy to demonstrate a valid waiver of a First Amendment right. "The Supreme Court has said that waiv- ers of First Amendment rights are to be inferred only in 'clearand compelling' circumstances." Rhinehart v. Seattle mimes Co., 98 Wn.2d 226, 239 n.4, 654 P.2d 673 (1982) (quot- ing Curtis.Pub'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S, 130, 145, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094, 87 S. Ct. 1975, reh'g denied, 389 U.S. 889,19 L. Ed. 2d 197, 88 S. Ct. 11 (1967)), of j` d, 467 U.S. 20, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984). "Moreover, it is well established that courts closely scrutinize waivers of constitutional rights, and 'indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver.' " Sambo's Restaurants, Inc. v. Ann Arbor, 663 F.2d 686, 690 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 81 L. Ed. 1177, 57 S. Ct. 809 (1937)). Sept. 1993 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT v. YAHIMA 122 Wn.2d 371, 858 P.2d 245 95 Without reference to these principles, the Court of Appeals in People for the Preserv. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. Spo- kane, 51 Wn. App. 816, 755 P.2d 836 (1988), which involved contracts similar to the OUA's at issue in this case, held that there was no First Amendment violation because: "(1) the covenant is unambiguous; (2) there is no showing that it was the product of coercion; and (3) in any event, the Landowners were allowed to voice their opposition to annexation at the City Council meetings." Five Mile Prairie, at 820. Because the landowners involved in Five Mile Prairie were allowed to voice their opposition, they were not deprived of the free speech rights asserted here. In other cases, where it has been argued that a party waived a First Amendment right, courts have indicated that the criminal law standard of a waiver voluntarily, know- ingly, and intelligently made might be applicable, and have required that, at the very least, the waiver of a First Amend- ment rightbe knowing. See Glendale v. George, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1394, 1398, 256 Cal. Rptr. 742, 744 (1989); Messina v. Department of Job Serv., 341 N.W.2d 52, 60 (Iowa 1983). [25]. We agree with these courts that, to be valid, a waiver of a First Amendment right must at least be knowing. Be- cause the evidence presented on summary judgment does not establish that appellant landowners had knowledge that the OUA's required them to waive a First Amendment right to speak out against annexation, we need not decide what other requirements must be satisfied for a valid waiver. As to the Leitches, the record shows only that Mrs. Leitch was aware that they would be required to annex, .not that they would be compelled to "actively promote" annexation. As to the Puhrmanns, the record reflects that they did not read their agreement. The City has not suggested any alternative source from which the Puhrmanns might have gained knowledge of the "actively promote" provision in the OUA. This lack of evidence to demonstrate a knowing waiver defeats the City's waiver argument. [26] However, the failure of the waiver argument does not lead us to the conclusion that the entire OUA is invalid. MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Zais, City Manager Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager From: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works Shelley Willson, Street and Traffic Operations Manager Joan Davenport, Supervising Traffic Engineer Dave Winton, Sign/Lines Supervisor and Acting Traffic Operations Supervisor Ken Mehin, Transit Manager Date: February 26, 2007— based on revised area as of November 1, 2006 Subject: Street and Traffic Operations and Transit Divisions' Analysis of Ability and Resources to Serve Proposed Occidental Annexation Street and Traffic Operations Division This memorandum highlights the service requirements associated with the Occidental Annexation and remaining areas. As with other annexations, this proposed area will require additional equipment, supplies and personnel in order to continue existing levels of service throughout the City of Yakima. Without the additional resources identified below, service levels in the area of snow and ice control and signs and markings will be reduced within the current city limits. AREA DESCRIPTION The proposed Occidental Annexation is a low-density residential area that has been included in the Urban Growth Area since 1976. Much of the existing housing and residential streets have been created under Yakima County standards. A wide variety of street conditions exist within the proposed annexation. Additionally, considerable vacant land is located within the area that will increase the overall miles of streets to be maintained as the area develops. The largest geographical challenge of the area is primarily the distance from the street and traffic operations base. It is approximately ten miles from the complex to the annexation area. This offers a unique challenge for operations such as winter snow and ice control operations. The distance traveled to refill sand and/or salt is not efficient, impacting response times, equipment maintenance and fuel use. This annexation area is unique in that the total impact to this division will not be realized until the area is improved. The growth potential would increase the total miles of streets well beyond the existing 8.4 linear miles. The new development will significantly impact the division in future years — our primary need today is in our signs/lines area and snow and ice control. Future growth of the division to keep pace with development should be programmed to meet the increasing needs as revenues from the area come on line to fund resources necessary to serve the area. RECENT ANNEXATIONS The last 3 annexations are noted with staffmg levels of the division noted. The decrease from 2002 to 2005 was due to cost containment measures necessary to balance the city's general fund budget and support priority programs for police / SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL Providing winter maintenance to assist in snow and ice control will result in a reorganization of our existing snow and ice districts. Areas on the eastern side of the city may be increased. This will accommodate the longer distance from the public works shop to the southwestern edge of the city. The recent annexations, due to the elevation, hills and schools require a higher level of attention then do the streets in the areas that are predominantly flat. If the current snow areas remain constant and a new area is added, 2 additional trucks would be necessary. Even with additional trucks, the division will have no spare trucks. The number of trucks will only be at a critical level during the months of November through February. We are currently investigating the potential to rent trucks. The city may need to provide the salt/sand spreader for the vehicles and they will not be equipped to plow snow. These rental trucks would be assigned to snow areas east of First Street because of the relatively flat geography and lesser snow accumulation (generally). GRAVEL STREET DUST ABATEMENT PROGRAM The annexation area includes 1.76 miles of gravel public streets. In 2003, the City of Yakima began a program to apply a hard light surface to all the existing gravel streets within the city limits as a method to improve air quality and reduce dust. In 2006, one gravel street remains to be hard surfaced. A source of funds would need to be identified for the application of a Bituminous Surface Treatment and street base for this annexation area. REET2 funds could be obligated for surfacing. In 2007, REET2 funds that had been dedicated to BST Programs funds were reallocated toward an on-going arterial maintenance program. The estimated material cost to complete a BST surface on the streets in this area is $80,000. Dust abatement is estimated at $20,000 annually. STREET SIGNS AND LINES Over ten miles of streets within the proposed annexation have lane markings (centerlines, edge lines and stencils). The annual cost to maintain the markings is estimates at $2,000 per mile. An increase in the paint supplies line to accommodate lane lines and stencils will be necessary. The signs/lines crew has not been able to keep pace with the increasing demands due to annexations and mandated markings and signs. An additional stencil truck and crew (two FTE) will be necessary to maintain the markings. A routine sign maintenance program was reduced to "call-in" replacements. Many of the existing signs have faded and are past their expected life cycle. Reflectivity level is mandated by the FHWA to insure visibility of signs. The city has not initiated this program; due to minimal personnel and sign supply line fund availability. Currently, all personnel are assigned to paint or stencil crew during the months of May through September. This results in only emergency work orders being processed during the painting season, delaying response times up to five months for completion of work orders. (Work orders are comprised on new sign installation, i.e., stop signs, ADA, parking regulations, speed limit and school related signs.) Increasing the supply sign line $20,000 and two additional FTE's at a cost of $88,000 would address many of these needs. STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS There are no existing signals in the annexation area and approximately 50 street lights. Power costs for street lights average nearly $90 each annually, for a total increase of $4,500. Relamping and routine maintenance supplies for the street lights are estimated at $750. Over time, residents will request additional street lights, currently the city funds a program that allows for the installation of 8 to 10 street lights per year. There is a large potential for developer installed lighting as vacant parcels are improved. This will significantly impact power costs in future years. The cost of this route is estimated to be $240,000 using a van with a non -CDL operator and $260,000 using a regular bus with a CDL operator. The Paratransit service per ride cost for the system will be the same as the rest of Yakima; unless the ridership due to this annexation increases the total rides by 10% in a three-month period. Investment of Wastewater Rate Payers for the Benefit of Future Customers The original wastewater system for Yakima consisted of open ditches, which discharged untreated effluent directly into the Yakima River. Initial sewer pipeline construction began in 1890 and lasted until approximately 1912. A second flurry of pipeline installation took place between 1922 and 1926. In 1936, the City constructed a primary treatment plant and several major trunk lines as a W.P.A. project to serve the health, welfare, and safety needs of the community and reduce pollution of the river. In 1965, Yakima's wastewater treatment was further enhanced by the addition of trickling filter biological treatment. This addition allowed the City to provide secondary treatment to the waste stream. By 1976, the treatment facility no longer had adequate capacity to handle the load generated from existing City of Yakima customers and stay in compliance with newly imposed water quality requirements mandated by the 1972 Clean Water Act. The Town of Union Gap and Terrace Heights Sewer District were also experiencing severe overload conditions and facility deterioration. Additionally, the developed area just west of the City of Yakima was experiencing numerous septic system failures. Further development in this area was also curtailed. The 1976 Wastewater Facility Plan was prepared. It recommended combining the flows from the urban area at a larger single regional facility and construction of several interceptors to allow for sewering of the urbanizing areas surrounding the existing city limits. Following the adoption of this Plan, major capital construction projects were undertaken which accomplished the above recommendations. Expansion, new technology, and rehabilitation to the wastewater treatment facility were funded by a combination of federal and state grants and loans, and local funds acquired from capital reserves and bonds. Typically, grants and loans were not eligible to be used to finance expansions in excess of 110% of existing demand. Therefore, much of the facility's expansion was ineligible for government subsidization and was financed by local cash. Loans, bonds, and cash reserves are funded through City retail customer rates or other charges. In the years 1976 through 1989, over $30.3 million was invested in the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Of this, $6.4 million was local cash funded through Citv retail customer rates. Since 1990, an additional $50 million has been invested in the Treatment Facility. Grants amounted to a scarce $6.6 million, leaving $33.4 million local cash funded through City retail customer Page 1 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT 200 South Third Street, Yakima, WA 98901-2830 (Phone) 509-575-6033 (Fax) 509-575-6160 MEMORANDUM March 1, 2007 TO: Mayor Dave Edler and Yakima City Council Members Dick Zais, City Manager CC: Doug Maples, Code Administration and Planning Manager Ray Paolella, City Attorney FROM: Cynthia 1. Martinez, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Butchering of Livestock within the City of Yakima Mr. Lee Stream owns some acreage located in the proposed Occidental Annexation area and runs a small animal husbandry operation, approximately six heads of cattle per year. The cattle are raised, killed, and butchered on the property. While there are other methods to kill an animal, Mr. Stream's, like many small animal husbandry operations, utilizes the shotgun method. Mr. Stream is concerned that annexation of his property into the City Proper will affect his ability to discharge a firearm and butcher the cattle on his property. "Discharging a Firearm" and the "Slaughtering, Dressing and Butchering of Animals" in the public view, are prohibited acts within the City of Yakima. YMC 6.20.44 and YMC 6.44.020. To resolve Mr. Stream's issue, an ordinance could be drafted to except both of these practices on newly annexed land where the permitted nonconforming use is animal husbandry. A narrowly drafted ordinance could include public safeguards such as requiring prior notice and requiring that a professional butcher perform the excepted acts. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT William R. Cook, Director Engineering Division 129 North Second Street, 2"d Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6111 - Fax (509) 576-6305 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS February 23. 2007 7th, 8th th & 9- Ave. L.I.D. #1056 79 Parcels $4,655.32 Per Parcel (Cost divided half per parcel remainder sq. footage) Total Cost: $376,384.82 City Participation: No Connection Fees. ONADS Grant: work performed on 17 eligible, low -to -moderate income homeowners, $54,900.49. This division also paid the Assessments for these homeowners $79,140.44. Council Action 10/31/05 84th Ave. L.I.D. #1057 36 Parcels Average Cost per parcel: $8,500.00 (Cost divided per sq. footage) Total Cost: $344,784.74 City Participation: No Connection Fees Council Action 04/04/06 N. 90th Ave., N. 94th Ave. & West Yakima Ave. L.I.D. #1058 44 Parcels (One project, 3 neighborhoods in close proximity, we tracked financing separately) 90th Ave. & Parcel Cost: $4,103.51 (Project Cost divided by Square Footage of 17 Parcels) W. Yakima Ave. Parcel Cost: $4,103.51 (Project Cost divided by Square Footage of 12 Parcels) 94th Ave. Parcel Cost: $ 3,900.00 (Project Cost divided by 15 Parcels) Total Cost: $200,534.00 City Participation: No Connection Fees Council Action 05/04/06 Return to: Yakima City Clerk 129 North Second Street Yakima WA 98901 Document Title: Grantor: Grantee: Legal Description: Parcel Numbers: Outside Utility Agreement, Annexation Covenant, and Special Power of Attorney City of Yakima Apple Tree Partnership The real property specified in the legal description on the attachment hereto marked "EXHIBIT C" and by reference made a part hereof LoT5 1-17 k5urve,j -7 r7ff O arcel 1: Parcel 2: Parcel 3: .arcel 4: parcel 5: cel 6: arcel 7: Parcel 8: arcel 9: 171201-11006 181206-22008 181206-22009 171201-11007 171201-14010 181206-23023 181206-23024 171201-14011 171201-14012 Parcel 1.0: 171201-13012 v e: Parcel 11: 171201-13013 Parcel 12: 171201-13014 r Parcel 13: 171201-24004 X Parcel 14: 171201-24005,)2 Parcel 15: 171201-24006 A Parcel 16: 181331-34001 Parcel 17: 181331-33004 TY OF 111 YAKIMf 1 11 1 1 1 7202421 Page: 1 of 16 8218612ee1 83:31P AGR $ 7.99 Yakima Co, WR alterations, additions or repairs shall conform to any and all then applicable construction and zoning codes as if the property affected by this Agreement were situated within the boundaries of the City of Yakima. The City shall have the right at any and all reasonable times to inspect the property described above, and any existing buildings, structures, and other improvements thereon. 4. Annexation Covenant. For purposes of this paragraph only, the term "Owner" shall exclude an occupant who does not own the real property legally described above. Owner has been informed of and understands that the City intends to commence annexation proceedings to annex certain property to the City of Yakima, including, but not limited to, the property legally described above. Information about the proposed annexation is available for public review at the City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development at 129 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington. Owner may review this information upon reasonable notice. Owner has a presently existing legal right not to sign a petition for annexation of the property legally described above. The purposes of this Agreement include but are not limited to Owner waiving such right and creation of such waiver as a covenant running with the land in the event that the City, in its discretion, furnishes water and/or sewer service to the above-described land. In consideration and as a condition of such furnishing of water and/or sewer service, Owner, for himself and for his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees and covenants with the City of Yakima, and to the present and future owners of any property affected by the furnishing of City water and/or sewer service to which this covenant relates, such agreement to constitute a covenant running with the land, that they shall, whenever so requested, sign any letter, notice, petition, documents, or other instruments initiating, furthering or accomplishing the annexation of the above-described property to the City of Yakima, whether or not the annexation involves the assumption by the area to be annexed of existing City indebtedness, the application to the area to be annexed of the comprehensive plan and land use controls of the City, and such other conditions as the City may lawfully impose, and the Owner will not protest the future formation of any local improvement district for domestic water and/or sewer service for any district which includes the property affected by this Agreement. Furthermore, this instrument shall be considered both a valid Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation and a valid Petition for Annexation, signed by the Owner, and by Owner's heirs, successors and assigns, for the above-described real property. 5. Special Power of Attorney. The undersigned Owner of the above- described real property, on behalf of himself, his heirs successors and assigns, hereby designates the City of Yakima as Owner's true and lawful attorney-in-fact for the purpose of signing any petition leading to the annexation of said real property to the City of Yakima, with full power to do and perform any proper act which Owner may do with respect to the annexation of said real property. The City of Yakima may exercise this power through its City Clerk or otherwise as the City Council may direct. This Special Power of Attorney is given for the valuable consideration of the furnishing of water and/or sewer service by the City of Yakima, and this Special Power of Attorney is City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 2 11111111 11 1111 II II 111 7202421 Page 3 of 16 82,86/2881 93:31P RGR $17.86 Yakima Co, WA to necessary court costs, such sums as the court may adjudge as reasonable attorney's fees. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Yakima County, Washington. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 11. Non-Severabilitv. In the event that any material provision is found unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be null and void and the City shall have no further obligation to provide water or sewer service to the property that is legally described above; provided, however, Owner shall make all payments as provided under this Agreement for services rendered prior to termination of service pursuant to this provision. 12. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. By: DATED this 6th day of February OWNER CITY OF YAKIMA APPLE TREE PARTNERSHIP By: .cc..L,Q „J , 2001. STATE OF WASHINGTON .) ) ss. County of Yakima Authorization No.: € / / / I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JOHN E. BORTON, authorized partner of APPLE TREE PARTNERSHI?ligned this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the use and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: February 6, 2001 Prin4. Name: JoAnn Ice NOT RY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, ng at Yakima My commission expires: August 27, 2003 City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 4 11 ITY OF YAKIMA 1 1 II 1111 11 7202421 Page: 5 of 18 82/86/2881 83:31P AG $17.88 Yakima Co, WA EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF UTILITY SERVICE APPROVAL City of Yakima service is extended to and available for one located on . Any other use or extension unless specifically authorized by appropriate City action is prohibited and grounds for summary disconnection and termination of service. OWNER OWNER The City of Yakima public sewer system will be extended according to the City's requirements and specifications to service the following development(s), all of which meets the proper zoning in accordance with Yakima County. Use and extension of the City sewer system is contingent upon compliance with all City sewer and wastewater system use ordinances and regulations (including, without limitation, Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 7.65) as those ordinances and regulations may be amended from time to time. Any other use or extension unless specifically authorized by appropriate City action is prohibited and grounds for summary disconnection of service. APPLE TREE PARTNERSHIP OWNER By ER John E. Barton, Partner City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 6 11 11 11 1 TV nr vow Mi 1 11 11 1 1 11, 11 II 7202421 Page: 7 of 10 02106/2001 63:31P .17 AA Yakima Co, WA • •.t Parcel 9 Parcel 9 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7, 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 10 Parcel 10 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 11 Parcel 11 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 12 Parcel 12 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 13 Parcel 13 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima. County, Washington. Parcel 14 Parcel 14 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850. dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 15 Parcel 15 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 16 Parcel 16 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel 17 Parcel 17 of that Record of Survey recorded under Auditor's File Number 7175850, dated July 7 2000, Records of Yakima County, Washington. City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 8 1111111111111140151 11,,,g2;f,i83ip C� Return to: Yakima City Clerk 129 North Second Street Yakima WA 98901 Document Title: Outside Utility Agreement, Annexation Covenant, and Special Power of Attorney Grantor: Grantee: Legal Description: City of Yakima Apple Tree Partnership The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 13 North, Range 18 east, W.M. Except the east 378.00 feet of the west 1335.00 feet of the south 310.00 feet thereof. And Except Lots 1 and 2 of Short Plat 82-162, Records of Yakima County, Washington. Parcel Number: 181331-43002 11111 y1111 II 11111 7202422 Page: 1 of 9 82186/2081 83:31P Re $18.98 Yakima Co, WA hereto marked "EXHIBIT A" and by reference made a part hereof (including, but not limited to, the service connection from the City's Main to the property), which alterations, improvements, and repairs shall be completed within the time specified on EXHIBIT A and shall be the property of Owner. Any future new construction or future alterations, additions or repairs shall conform to any and all then applicable construction and zoning codes as if the property affected by this Agreement were situated within the boundaries of the City of Yakima. The City shall have the right at any and all reasonable times to inspect the property described above, and any existing buildings, structures, and other improvements thereon. 4. Annexation Covenant. For purposes of this paragraph only, the term "Owner" shall exclude an occupant who does not own the real property legally described above. Owner has been informed of and understands that the City intends to commence annexation proceedings to annex certain property to the City of Yakima, including, but not limited to, the property legally described above. Information about the proposed annexation is available for public review at the City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development at 129 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington. Owner may review this information upon reasonable notice. Owner has a presently existing legal right not to sign a petition for annexation of the property legally described above. The purposes of this Agreement include but are not limited to Owner waiving such right and creation of such waiver as a covenant running with the land in the event that the City, in its discretion, furnishes water and/or sewer service to the above-described land. In consideration and as a condition of such furnishing of water and/or sewer service, Owner, for himself and for his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees and covenants with the City of Yakima, and to the present and future owners of any property affected by the furnishing of City water and/or sewer service to which this covenant relates, such agreement to constitute a covenantrunning with the land, that they shall, whenever so requested, sign any letter, notice, petition, documents, or other instruments initiating, furthering or accomplishing the annexation of the above- described property to the City of Yakima, whether or not the annexation involves the assumption by the area to be annexed of existing City indebtedness, the application to the area to be annexed of the comprehensive plan and land use controls of the City, and such other conditions as the City may lawfully impose, and the Owner will not protest the future formation of any local improvement district for domestic water and/or sewer service for any district which includes the property affected by this Agreement. Furthermore, this instrument shall be considered both a valid Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation and a valid Petition for Annexation, signed by the Owner, and by Owner's heirs, successors and assigns, for the above-described real property. 5. Special Power of Attorney. The undersigned Owner of the above- described real property, on behalf of himself, his heirs successors and assigns, hereby designates the City of Yakima as Owner's true and lawful attorney-in-fact for the purpose of signing any petition leading to the annexation of said real property to the City of Yakima, with full power to do and perform any proper act which Owner may do City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 2 in I �N I 1 11 N�. 11 A4 n .... • 72422 Pa20ge: 3 of 9 02108/2001 83:31P 9. Fire Protection Flow Requirements. The City's approval of water service does not guarantee fire protection flow requirements. 10. Litigation; Governing Law. In the event that any suit or action is instituted by either party to enforce compliance with or interpret any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect, in addition to necessary court costs, such sums as the court may adjudge as reasonable attorney's fees. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Yakima County, Washington. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 11. Non-Severabilitv. In the event that any material provision is found unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be null and void and the City shall have no further obligation to provide water or sewer service to the property that is legally described above; provided, however, Owner shall make all payments as provided under this Agreement for services rendered prior to termination of service pursuant to this provision. 12. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. DATED this 6th day of February , 20= 1 OWNER- CITY OF YAKIMA By: APPLE TREE PARTNERSHIP By: n n By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Yakima Authorization No.: ,a / / . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JOHN E. BORTON, authorized partner of APPLE TREE PARTNERSHIP, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the use and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: February 6. 2001 ----740L Print?d Name: JoAnn Ire NOT4RY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, ILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) 8-61, May 5, 1998 Ictotti 111111111111 7202422 Page; 5 of 9 02/98/2081 93:31P AGR $16,80 Yakima Co, WA EXHIBIT A IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS TO BE MADE BY OWNER OWNER OWNER City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 6 III 011111 11 11 11 11 I 7202422 Page: 7 of 9 8218612881 63:31P AG $16.88 Yakima Co, WA ADDENDUM to Outside Utility Agreement No. 2112 with Apple Tree Partnership The City of Yakima acknowledges and stipulates that the terms of Section A.4. of the Sewer Construction and Bond Purchase Agreement, dated November 14, 2000, shall prevail to the extent the terms of Paragraph 2. of this Outside Utility Agreement conflict with Section A.4. of the Sewer Construction and Bond Purchase Agreement. Attest: Richard A. Zais, Jr. City Manager 9 it 7 Karen Roberts v, �, City Clerk"rte �' + City of Yakima OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT (OUA) Amended by Resolution R-98-61, May 5, 1998 Page 8 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 7202422 Page: 9 of 9 02!0612881 03:31P ■ SG 0 cr crw a cr 0 PEAR AVE EN 96TH AVE SUMMITVIEW AVE E HOLLOW RD ZIER RD H w Q 0 S 72ND AVE ENGLEWOOD AVE N 56TH AVE TIETON DR w 1— N 48TH AVE S 48TH AVE W WASHINGTON AVE ERT RD > w H w Lnz N AHTANUM RD PR e4 1.1/q< RIVER RD CHTER RD N S 40TH AVE WIST EIST CASTLEVALE RD w w Z Q Z a 1. _ 1- = �'� N ENGLEWOOD AVE Ln U) U) W LINCOLN AVE Z eN{PK\MPPNI� Z �� m w eCN LL N� 0) W NOB HILL BLVD w fIINGTON AVE ❑ TTERFIELD RD cls E NOB HILL BLVD EVIOLA AVE � E MEAD AVE KEYES RD 0 TON AVE cr M U) PIONEER W AHTANUM RD MAIN ST RUDKIN RD The Role of Annexation in Yakima's Growth Legend City Limits Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Annexation Annexation Date Original City 1894-1929 1930-1960 1961-1989 1990- Current s 3,700 1,850 0 3,700 Feet Created: 02/26/2007 SUMMITVI1W EXT RD ■ T N 96TH AVE N z • COTTONWOOD CANYON RD �_ • ■ ibimiumumumvxli ZIER Q r ASHINGTONAVE Ago M.—.= cooLl � !°,606:°1v,. p Woo: dor6r0 P r". r 45p; &.t A fTAfdtJ I 4— L J_ , I_ BL • k � w 1- 0 co a w SPRING CREE 7 r Occidental Annexation Legend rocoot LEfflower Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Annexation Area Sewer Pipes OUA 75.89% Value $88,722,050.00 Estimated Population: 723 Area 1.6 Sq Mi. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet Created: 02/26/2007 WIDE HOLLOW RD DAZET RD w 0, 0 OCCIDENT WASHINGTON AVE 47rAnzjr ed4A irfrAr, ardrAW Awv ry _ to x 2A 4 r,` , ' Ota 44.-w . .fir47 A �, A�� .� sr�/// �.0.�i�.. ice% ,/ •r. A 1► .)ifs;,A -- COOLIDGE R W Q - z - - occinewcon City of Yakima New Connections 5/2001-2/15/2007 Legend r 1 ti...■.I Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Annexation City Limits --- -- Waste Water Pipes o Utility Accounts o New Connections s 970 485 0 970 Feet Created: 02/28/2007 L �_..- MAPLEW▪ AY RD--~ -- *NO SUMMITVIEW AVE aI Lij L _ m TERRACE HGTS DR 0 >- cn w GUN CLUB RD ROZA HILL DR to c Orspl▪ auf t—a cn OCCID --COOLIDGE RD w j� I �7I_' oinnt�nn. T `. 0 z N in Z _ ___.._ ANTAK[UJN RB _ W AHTANUM RD 0 A' il ;r - �'L z � SAVE _ Terrace Heights Land Use not avafkae at tune o/ panting Zoning Coverage uses W WASHINGTON AVE MEA — MIERAS RD 0 City of Yakima Future Land Use Legend City Limits Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Annexation Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Proffessional Office Neighborhood Commercial Arterial Commercial CBD Core Commercial Industrial Regional Commercial West Valley Plan ** Commercial/Retail IF High Density Residential Med Density Residential Suburban Residential Low Density Residential s 3.750 1.875 0 ** Not Yet Adopted 3,750 Feet Created: 02/27/2007 WIDE -HOLLOW r -- - 1- w N w >= co - ZIER RD W NOB HILL BLVD S 72ND AVE S 64TH AVE W WASHINGTON AVE rer. A, l'Asvw:,4 e •°P:0 10 "4• eg'llw4 da0AA1014 w co SPRING CREEK RD AHTANUW RD --E U S 40TH AVE Occidental Annexation Legend Lim; Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Annexation Area Signed Agreements OUA 75.89% Value $88,722,050.00 Estimated Population: 723 Area 1.6 Sq Mi. 1,750 875 0 1,750 Feet Created: 02/26/2007