Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1990 Special Meeting 3 SPECIAL MEETING - JUNE 4, 1990 JOINT MEETING WITH YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. ROLL CALL • The City Council met in session on this date'at 11:30 A.M. in the Restaurant Banquet Room at the Air Terminal, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Pat Berndt, presiding, Council members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, George Pechtel, Skip Semon and Bernard Sims present. Yakima County Commissioners present were Chuck Klarich, Alex Deccio and Graham Tollefson. City staff members present were Assistant. City Manager Stouder, Glenn Rice, Director of Community & Economic Development, John Vanek, City Attorney, Don Skone, Planning Manager, John Elsden, Associate Planner, and City Clerk Roberts. County staff members present were Dick Anderwald and Steve Erickson. 2: LUNCHEON MEETING WITH 'THE .YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS ANNEXATION STRATEGIES County Commissioner Tollefson initiated the discussion by . - commenting that the City and County should learn about each other's needs. He suggested that the.: two entities'should meet on a regular basis, as was done.•several years ago when working together on the Urban Area. Plan and Zoning Ordinance.. He emphasized the fact that the County understands the City's need to grow economically and geographically: Council member Sims requested= a copy of the County's strategic plan or mission statement, if one exists. County Commissioner Klarich echoed Commissioner Tollefson's suggestion about joint meetings. He further commented that if the • City annexes all the commercial entities, the County loses money. Commissioner Tollefson pointed out that when the City annexes an area, the City,realizes the-County loses the revenue, but isn't affected that much because the County loses responsibility for that area also. However, the County still has on -going responsibilities to maintain the jail, prosecutor's office, etc. He stated the County's policy is that development should take place in or near towns. He commented that the amount of money involved in sewer , ,surcharge is very small,_ however, as a policy tool, it has a lot of meaning. He asked why people who have agreed to annex whenever it is appropriate should pay a surcharge? He said that he doesn't know ,why any development contingent to the City should not be annexed before receiving City services. Mayor Berndt stated the Council would be willing to meet with the Commissioners to discuss long range plans, however, most of the Council members work full - time in addition to serving on the City Council. Discussion was diverted to the recent lobbying effort by the City and County for funding for law and justice. efforts and the best approach to take for the next_ legislative session. Council members • disagreed with the County Commissioners, believing the results may -1- • 4 SPECIAL MEETING - JUNE 4, 1990 have been different had there been more support by the County for the City's law and justice funding :proposal. Commissioner Tollefson referred Council to the bottom of page three of their material distributed earlier in the meeting, which indicates some of the County concerns as it relates to the annexation policy. Discussion ensued as to the timing of the joint meetings between the two entities. Commissioner -Deccio suggested that it might be simpler to get the two parties together if only one or two Commissioners meet with a couple of Council members and a staff person from each entity to discuss. one issue at a time, then these issues can come before the entire bodies. He continued, stating his biggest problem-with the City's annexing property is cost recovery for the County. He stated that 72% of the County's budget is for law and justice, and the County can't afford any losses in revenue. He suggested another topic could be the sewer surcharge. It was MOVED BY DECCIO THAT THE ISSUE OF COST RECOVERY THROUGH ANNEXATION BY THE COUNTY BE A PART OF A WORKING COMMITTEE WITH A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND A COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND ONE STAFF PERSON FROM EACH OF THE TWO ENTITIES, AS A STARTER. The motion died for lack of a second. Council member Sims stated he did not think this should be that specific, cost recovery is a minor part of the annexation issue. Following further debate about scheduling the joint meetings, it was MOVED BY SIMS, THAT WE MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP TO ESTABLISH A JOINT GROUP TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES AND IF AGREED UPON, ASSIGN A COMMISSIONER AND A COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO START WORKING ON THESE AGENDA ITEMS ESTABLISHED BY THAT GROUP. • The motion died for lack of a second. The two entities reviewed the issues each thought should be discussed 'by the two entities. Following this discussion,•it was the understanding of the Mayor that she and Commissioner Tollefson will meet with a staff member from each entity and develop a list of priorities from each entity and get a couple of Council members and Commissioners together and talk about some committee, on an interim basis. 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. • READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY• • /1 f4y� /' COUNCIL M E mrr DATE . • - COUNCIL ` :ER DATE (2't k5h/T2di MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY CLERK -2-