Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/2002 Adjourned Business Meeting 12 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 23, 2002 - 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Lynn Buchanan, Paul George, Larry Mattson (present after 2:10 p.m.), John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims Staff: City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella and City Clerk Roberts 2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Puccinelli gave an invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Barnett. 3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER There was no discussion for the good of the order. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES) BUCHANAN MOVED AND GEORGE SECONDED TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY THIRTY MINUTES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING PENDING LITIGATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Council returned to open session at 2:38 p.m. 5. CONSIDERATION OF INTERIM POLICY OPTIONS FOR OUTSIDE UTILITY SERVICES • Staff Presentation and Discussion City Manager Zais stated the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the petition method of annexation and how it affects the City's Outside Utility Agreement (OUA). The OUA policy has been in place for almost forty years. The recent Supreme Court decision invalidated the petition method for annexation on a Constitutional basis. When we learned about the decision we determined we did not have enough information to make a recommendation to the Council about the city's policy, and thus, instituted an administrative hold for 30 days on the issuance of outside utility connections to do the legal research. Last Thursday we filed a motion for reconsideration. Other briefs in support of our motion will be filed by several organizations, including the State Attorney General's Office. The briefs ask • 13 APRIL 23, 2002 — ADJOURNED MEETING for clarification and reconsideration of the case and prospective ruling of the decision regarding annexations made by the cities in Washington. We also requested a stay to enable us to work towards a legislative solution. It is important for us to foster growth and annexation. The options we have outlined are in the memo that Bill Cook will present. Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development, reviewed three options prepared for Council consideration: Option One: • Provide outside utility service throughout the Yakima Urban Growth Area but with no expectation of future annexation Option Two: • Provide outside utility service to property owners with existing agreements or permits issued by the City and County; and • Extend utility services to new customers without such agreements or permits only upon annexation Option Three: • Provide outside utility service to property owners with existing agreements or permits issued by the City and County; and • Extend utility services to new customers without such agreements or permits only upon annexation; and • Extend outside service for imminent health emergencies Staff recommends Option Three be approved, under which there is an estimated 1,000 buildable lots that could be served. Council Member Puccinelli queried why the requirement of signing a modified agreement couldn't be included in Option One and let property owners who have not filed for a permit or signed a previous agreement be served. Conrad Liegel, legal consultant with Preston Gates Ellis, reviewed the City's policy of serving property in the unincorporated area. Historically, the policy has allowed sewer connection if the property was annexed to the city or the property owner promised to annex to the city when asked. The primary method of annexation was accomplished by petitions. The Supreme Court decision has declared unconstitutional the petition method of annexation, leaving the election method of annexation. Without the petition option, there is no method for the property owner to commit to annexation in the future. A property owner could sign an outside utility agreement, but we know that would only be effective if it turns out that another annexation method .(other than election) is made available. The other option is to stand behind the current policy, but recognize that we are now left with one condition, and that is to require annexation now. We could continue to honor the agreements with existing customers but with respect to the future, we will provide service only if they annex through the election method. The City, along with others, submitted briefs asking the court to reconsider its decision and to clarify its decision. Council Member Puccinelli expounded on his view that everyone should be treated the same, whether or not they had previously signed an OUA or some other commitment. • 2 14 APRIL 23, 2002 — ADJOURNED MEETING City Manager Zais stated that the staff recommendation includes a time line of sixteen months that the interim policy would be in effect. Council Member Buchanan stated Council could re- examine that decision at any time. • Comments from the Audience Pat Strusssel, United Builders, commented that he appreciates the fact that all the options being considered include honoring existing OUAs. He urged Council to pass legislation in one form or another that honors these OUAs, particularly since it would affect their Orchard Pointe project, which provides good jobs for about 40 people (several citizens who work for United Builders stood up in support of Mr. Strussel's comments). He believes the City is obligated to follow . through with connections on existing plats and agreements. Jamie Carmody, attorney, spoke representing three clients and himself: • Apple Tree: He agreed with the proposal on Apple Tree in allowing the connections. In this case where bonds were issued, by not allowing connections the City could be placed in a position to buy back the bonds.. • Sierra Estates Development: This development falls into the group that has pre - paid its connection charges and that situation was recognized in policy option two. • Cottonwood Grove, Rich Hochrein development: This development has received preliminary plat approval. The City agreed verbally to provide service and based upon that the project went forward and was approved. Any property that fits in that category should be recognized. Lastly, he spoke about his thoughts on this issue. He believes we have a regional sewer system designed to serve Terrace Heights, Union Gap, and the unincorporated area. The Department of Ecology has a rule that demands hookup to the sewer if the property is in an urban area and a septic system won't be allowed. The sewer rate structure is a huge incentive to annex to the city. Speaking to the recommended option, he asked how significant is the number that this policy would exclude? He said that they could still be asked to sign an outside utility agreement. Council Member Puccinelli opined that the value of the property adjacent to the sewer trunk line just increased and those properties not adjacent to the line just got devalued. Council Member Buchanan stated that the citizens of Yakima paid to extend the sewer line and will hopefully be reimbursed when property owners connect to that line. Mr. Carmody pointed out that if you don't allow anyone to hookup to the sewer, you will lose revenue. Doug Rich, Prestige Realty, agreed with Option 3, but feels it needs a sunset clause to make sure the policy is temporary. We need a comprehensive longer -term policy. Another point is that when we are looking for development property or are asked by a property owner to develop their property, the realtor will rely on information at hand and when that information is a moving target then the buyer will lose trust in what we are able to come up with. We, as a community, do have a responsibility under the Growth Management Act to manage our growth.. He looked at the issue of "duty to serve" and doesn't know if the full duty to serve falls on the city; it may fall on the 4- party agreement. We need to take aggressive steps to get a more permanent policy. 3 APRIL 23, 2002 — ADJOURNED MEETING 15 • Council Action - GEORGE MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED TO APPROVE OPTION THREE. (Option Three is: A. Provide outside utility service to property owners with existing agreements or permits issued by the City and County; and B. Extend utility services to new customers without such agreements or permits only upon annexation; and C. Extend outside service for imminent health emergencies) BUCHANAN MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE COUNCIL LOOKING AT THE ISSUE AS SOON AS EITHER A LEGAL OR LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION IS FOUND OR NOT TO EXCEED SIXTEEN MONTHS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The question was called for the vote on the motion as amended. The motion carried by 6 -1 roll call vote; Puccinelli voting nay. Council Member Puccinelli stated he likes the fact that the commitments are being honored; but he sees no difference in the people who have already made a commitment and those that would have liked to have that same opportunity. Council Member George commented that this is an interim agreement. He agrees with Council Member Puccinelli that it allows Council to honor existing commitments, but it also preserves the use of annexation for future growth. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO MAY 7, 2002 AT 7:30 A.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR STUDY SESSION ON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS BUCHANAN MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING TO MAY 7, 2002 AT 7:30 A.M. FOR A STUDY SESSION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: CIL MEM: /►ATE � — COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: °/*1. e j - .4(e-i..e CITY CLERK MARY PLACE, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 4