Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2009 00 Regional Planning Issues David Edler, Mayor i■ •:, /.4. i ' ' t Micah Cawley, Assistant Mayor r j Yakima Maureen Adkison ; City Council Kathy Coffey Rick Ensey Agenda Bill Lover I 29 N. 2nd Street,Yakima,WA. 98901 Sonia Rodriguez Phone: (509) 575-6000 • Fax (509) 576-6614 City Manager Email: ccouncil@ci.yakima.wa.us • www.ci.yakima.wa.us Richard A. Zais, Jr. Anyone wishing to address the Council, please fill out the form found on the tables and give it to the City Clerk YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING — STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2009 — 5:00 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS — YAKIMA CITY HALL 1. Roll Call 2. Regional Planning Issues 3. Adjournment to the Council Business meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers The City provides special accommodations such as hearing devices and wheelchair space for City meetings. Anyone needing special assistance please contact the City Clerk's office at (509) 575-6037. • Yakima b11211 AD4.....clt. City of Yakima Vision Statement: To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe, and strong Yakima community. ill I I f ‘ II P. Adopted March 2008 1994 • NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Yakima City Council will be held at the time, date and place specified below, for the purpose of considering the matters specified below. Dated this 13 day of November, 2009. /s/ Deborah Kloster, City Clerk Date and time of Special Meeting: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. Place of Special Meeting: Yakima City Hall Council Chambers 129 North. Second Street Yakima, Washington Special Meeting called by: Mayor Dave Edler Agenda: Discussion of regional planning issues • MEMORANDUM FORCITYCOUNCILSTUDY SESSION TO: City Manager, Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council FROM: Bill Cook, Community and Economic Development Director Joan Davenport, Planning Manager DATE: November 17, 2009 SUBJECT: Regional Planning Issues STATUS OF REGIONAL PLANNING AGREEMENT On August 25, 2009 the Yakima County Commissioners signed a Resolution (Res 401- 2009) which declared that effective January 1, 2010, Yakima County will no longer participate in the Regional Planning Agreement. As a consequence, the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) will no longer have Yakima County representation or jurisdiction for land use and comprehensive planning in the unincorporated portion of the Yakima Urban Area. This action by Yakima County will end the cooperative planning agreement used for land use, utility and policy planning in the Yakima Urban Area since 1976. As a result of this pending change, the Council Intergovernmental Committee initiated a discussion on what, if any, changes in regional planning might now be considered by City Council in the best interest of the residents of the City of Yakima. City Council members of the Intergovernmental Committee (Edler, Ensey and Lover) have held several work sessions to consider various options for the City of Yakima. The Intergovernmental Committee reviewed a wide variety of possible policy changes related to Regional Planning, annexation, sewer service and the Four Party Agreement. The options were described and discussed at the work session on October 27, 2009. A summary of recommendations were prepared following the work session. These reports are included in this package. RECOMMENDTION BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE The Committee recommends a number of actions that focus future city resources on the citizens of the City of Yakima. Continued expansion of investment outside the city limits cannot be sustained with the present budget constraints. Expansion of sewer mains to support housing development outside the city limits has diverted infrastructure resources from areas that remain un-served within the city limits. Emergency and Fire responding to calls outside the City of Yakima diverts limited resources at a time of fiscal challenges. Mutual agreements between surrounding communities are very important and should be continued. However, contracts for first response service outside the City limits and "unbalanced" mutual aid agreements must be reviewed for sustainability. WEST VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN On October 26, 2009, Yakima County released the Draft West Valley Neighborhood Plan (WVNP) to the Regional Planning Commission and to the City of Yakima. A preliminary schedule for review of the WVNP by the Regional Planning Commission targets the end of the calendar year for a recommendation to be submitted to the County Commission and City Council. The WVNP will be processed as a sub-area amendment to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2025. The Plan will include Future Land Use and Zoning recommendations, as well as infrastructure improvement planning, transportation, natural elements including flood plains and a capital facilities element. Once the WVNP has been reviewed by the public and adopted, it will provide policy guidance and capital facility planning for the region. Identification of resources for financing street and infrastructure improvements in the WVNP is a required portion of the Plan. SEWER SERVICE Current City policy (City Resolution 2004-30, attached) states that development adjacent to the city limits must annex prior to receiving public sewer. This policy was adopted by City Council to ensure that service costs are appropriately distributed to all users within the system. As noted previously, the Council Intergovernmental Committee recommends a prioritization of resources to serve existing homes and businesses within the city. This refocus would be subject to a legal "duty to serve" new customers connecting to existing wastewater pipes. Decisions on whether new development on the perimeter of the city will receive wastewater service and be considered for annexation should made by the City of Yakima and not the County. ANNEXATION Citizen petitions for annexation to the city of Yakima are still considered an important development tool. However, until the WVNP is complete and the Capital Facility Plan adopted, large scale annexation should be delayed. NEW PLANNING COMMISSION AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The Council Intergovernmental Committee recommends that the City begin the process to establish a City of Yakima Planning Commission. Given the County position, the city has no option. In addition, it is not practical to continue to include Union Gap representation, if the jurisdiction is limited to the City of Yakima. A number of sections of the Yakima Municipal Code will need to be modified to re-structure and replace the Regional Planning Commission with a City of Yakima Planning Commission. Coordination of Long range planning issues, the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and common development standards will be more challenging without the RPC. CONCLUSIONS Staff requests direction from Council on which of the recommendations from the Intergovernmental Committee should be implemented and noticed to the public and County. Summary of Intergovernmental Committee Rect endations for Regional Planning Policy Respoe REM Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Committee Comments i , 1 Given County position, the City Requests I , City and County City and Union Gap County delay ONE City Requests City Requests City has no choice. Not Regional practical to continue to ! "Go Their Own Continue RPC YEAR Before Arbitration Provisions Opinion on Planning include Union Gap when it: Way" Without County Withdrawing From of 4-Party Agreement County Decision RPC , is a City of Yakima Planning Commission. L _ .. - , 1 , , , 'Public expenditures :Priority of new sewer' Wastewater Continue to ; investment inside City Limits should be focused on u ts and n- ' Services Provide Sewer to Discontinue Defer Future Sewer , served property inside city 1 ; existing City area, , UGA are co- Outside City New Current Policy Service , limits. Emergency needs ' ; subject to "duty to ' terminius f Limits Development 1 - to be reviewed , ! serve" obligation , 1 , I individually. ____I ___ , , I I I - --- -- — Small annexations may be ■ Continue No Annexation in ! No Annexation in City Defers All Retract Urban OK, but no major Annexation Annexation West Valley until West Valley until Annexations for at Area annexation until the Policy Plan Completed Plan Completed Least 5 Years ,WVNP is complete. I _ — Declare 4-Party 'After the WVNP is , Sign the Tolling Agreement is Declare 4-Party Sign the Tolling 'complete, the Tolling Agreement and • • breached - consider Negotiate new 3' Four-Party Agreement expired Agreement and Party Agreement should be negotate revsed separate agreements 1 Agreement 4-Party Negotiate new 3- negotiate revised with Union Gap; Agreement signed and a revised 4- Agreement Terrace Heights party Agreement 4-party Agreement party Agreement , i negotiated. Sewer District neg - TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM To: Yakima Intergovernmental Committee From: Bill Cook, Director of Community and Econoinic Development Joan Davenport, City of Yakima Planning Manager Date: October 27, 2009 Subject: Policy Options For City Response to County Withdrawing from Regional Planning Agreement . This memo includes a summary description of Policy Options for consideration by the City Council in response to the notice from Yakima County of their intent to Withdraw from the Regional Planning Agreement. The council representatives of the Intergovernmental Committee are requested to provide guidance in the preferred options for action by the City of Yakima. Each option has a • - number of implementation measures that would be taken as a result of the policy direction. This memo summarizes three basic significant Policy Options for discussion: 1. Regional Planning Commission 2. Wastewater Services 3. Annexation Ril ',tonal Planning Options City and County City and Union Gap City Requests County City Requests City Requests Arbitration "Go Their Own Continue RPC delay ONE YEAR Before Opinion on County Way" Without County Withdrawing From RPC Provisions of 4-Party Decision Agreement • The City could request the The "Agreement for The City of Yakima could . County reconsider the timing City establishes The Cities of Yakima Wastewater Teatment and request an Advisory of their withdrawing from the Planning Commission and Union Gap could Disposal Services" signed Opinion from the Eastern Regional Planning Agreement for city limits only. continue the RPC. in 1976 includes an Washington Hearings i . n order to allow the Regional County Planning However, the scope of Arbitration Provision to Board regarding the Planning Commission to Commission does long the RPC would be settle disputes between County decision to cooperatively review the West range planning inside of limited since Union Gap parties (Section 9 of withdraw from Regional Valley Neighborhood Plan the Yakima Urban Area is advisory only in the Resolution D-1250, also Planning Agreement. (WVNP) including common including zoning, utility Planning Commission. known as the Four-Party During the review zoning, development standards, planning, development RPC would continue to Agreement). The process, the City would Cital f acilities plan and standards, capital be the Planning ap procedures for Arbitration continue to support RPC infrastructure. After the WVNP facilities and future land Commission for the City are identified in the until Eastern Washington is adopted, the City and County use. of Yakima. agreement. This provision Hearings Board reviews could "go their own way" with has not been used. the decision Planning Commissions. Comments Comments Comments Comments Comments Wastewater Service Options Continue to Provide Sewer to New Discontinue Current Defer Future Sewer No Sewer Service Until Development Policy Servieeti City: Area is serviced Continue current policy Defer any extension of "sewer of extending wastewater service'Outside city, limits until The City of sewe could Discontinue" current policy: require that no :sewer extension line with an Outside infrastructure planning, capital and limit sewer service-to _ - : -. is allowed outside oft Utility Agreement to - facilities program and properties inside the city ; ° Limits, until all properties property that is equivalent urban level - = -limits.: - within the City Limits Have contiguous to the city development standards have been provided sewer service limits. been- adopted. Comments Comments Comments Comments Axation No Annexation in West City Defers All Continue Annexation Valley until Plan Retract Urban Area Annexations for at Least Policy Completed 5 Years Do not process any. The City of Yakima could defer additional annexations in any annexation for a 5 year The City could request the West Valley until the West period until rel,renues are No change in current Terrace Heights and West Valley Neighborhood Plan is available to support expansion of annexation policy - generally Valley be removed from the • complete including Capital Police, Fire and Street limited to requests of property Yakima Urban Area. The Maintenance services. No Facilities Element, owners and sign Outside Yakima Urban Growth Area - Infrastructure extension extension of public sewer beyond Utility Agreement , could be the existing City planning, development city limits. Emergency Limits. standards along with future connections may be allowed land use and zoning limited cases. Comments Comments Comments Comments City Options for Regional Planning Policy Response Issues Option Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 City - = City and rteqUeSt5':' City anit_Union: --1.;ciunty City Requests Regional County "Go - — - Arbitration. . Planning Their Own - PrOVisiOns.,.01-4- Without C ounty "witheir4:4ving-Pttobi- • • Way" . p Agreement.. , - Decision • , - • - Wastewater Continue to S ew e r . • ,Q • Services Provide Sewer . ':Y1 Dittoritithle. Defer EUtur*S,OWOC • 'CitY , Limits and .UGA Outside City to New Current Policy are co-termiMus „ Limits Development - : = • • Continue No Annexation in NO''AnneXati:oit iii 'City "Defers' All Annexation W V - tT' f"A'Retrac b an rea Annexation West es ,a ey'‘un nneXa ions- or a r - , „ Policy Plan Completed Plan Completed LeaSt--5"Yearsy , Declare 4-Party Sign the Tolling Declare 4-Party Agreement is breached - Sign the Tolling Agreement Four-Party Agreement and Agreement expired - i consider separate Negotiate new 3-Party revised Agreement negotiate fevised 4- Negotiate new 3-party and negotate revsed party Agreement agreements with Union Agreement Party Agreement Agreement Gap; Terrace Heights Sewer District MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City-County Intergovernmental Committee FROM: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney DATE: September 21, 2009 SUBJ: Issues regarding County withdrawal from RPC and 1977 Planning Agreement CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS • The County has advised the cities of Yakima and Union Gap that it intends to withdraw from the Regional Planning Commission ("RPC") effective January 1, 2010, and thereafter intends to plan for the unincorporated portion of the Yakima Urban Area' without input from the RPC. We further understand that there are some concerns on the part of Yakima County officials regarding annexation within the Yakima Urban Area. CONCERNS • With respect to this proposed action by the County, there are substantial concerns about the legal implications of such action and the potential effect of the action on the availability of sewer service in unincorporated areas. A summary of these concerns is: o Such action may unintentionally breach or invalidate the 1976 Four Party Agreement. o The City entered the Four Party Agreement and agreed to provide wastewater service within the unincorporated Urban Area, in part on the condition of sharing a meaningful role in planning for those areas. In fact, since 1976 much of the Urban Area has incorporated into the City, and under the State Growth Management Act, it is expected that a significant portion, if not all of the remainder, will ultimately annex as well. o The County's action in this regard serves to severely diminish the City's planning role within the Urban Area, the same areas the City is expected to serve with wastewater, and ultimately other urban services such as; a transportation network to access major shopping, employment, education, For purposes of this memorandum, "Urban Area" excludes the service territory of the Terrace Heights Sewer District. • 1 and medical services, as well as fire and police services through mutual aide. o A unilateral action by the County through their withdrawal from the RPC may impact the City's ability to provide wastewater connections in the Urban Area. The City has never assumed an unconditional obligation to provide service in those areas. The County's contemplated unilateral change in planning policy would require the City to reevaluate the conditions under which wastewater service would be provided to the unincorporated areas served by the City of Yakima. o In any event, regardless of whether the County unilaterally withdraws, the RPC may have the right and obligation, in accord with the several agreements that continue in effect, to continue to provide the planning review and recommendations for the Urban Area. ANALYSIS WOULD THE RPC STILL HAVE PLANNING OVERSIGHT FOR THE UGA? • The parties' participation in the RPC and the scope of its planning responsibilities are implicated by three interrelated agreements that have been extensively amended over time: o Urban Yakima Area Planning and Development Agreement dated November 12, 1974 (the "1974 Agreement") o Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Services dated February 23, 1976 (the "Four Party Agreement") o Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement dated January 25, 1977 (the "1977 Agreement") • Based on the discussion to date, the City can only assume that by withdrawing from the RPC, the County also intends to withdraw from the 1977 Agreement. Under the 1977 Agreement, withdrawal will result in the termination of County's participation in the RPC and the Joint Board. • However, the 1977 Agreement is clear that if only one party withdraws; the RPC and Joint Board continue to function. Following the County's withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement, the City and Union Gap will continue as members of the RPC and the Joint Board. Under the terms of the 1974 Agreement, the 1977 Agreement and the Four Party Agreement, those entities will continue to conduct 'Note that the 1982 amendments of all three agreements left the provision for the termination of participation in the Joint Board upon withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement intact. As a result, it is likely that the County's withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement will terminate its participation in both the RPC and the Joint Board. 2 regional planning activities within the Urban Area. In particular, the Four Party Agreement provides that the RPC "shall serve as the long range planning body for the Urban Area." • In sum, in spite of a unilateral withdrawal by any one of the parties, in this case the County, the City believes the agreements provide that the RPC shall still have planning authority within the Urban Area. ABSENT THE RPC, WOULD THE COUNTY HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ON PLANNING FOR THE UGA? • Section 10.I.0 of the Four Party Agreement provides, "The land within the planning boundary shall be controlled by the respective legislative bodies of the parties to this agreement using a single long range comprehensive plan and common zoning and subdivision law." • The November 2000 Interlocal Agreement between the City of Yakima and Yakima County for Growth Management Act Implementation also imposes duties • to cooperate in planning activities. These include: o The duty "to promote orderly development of the City through annexation" o The duty to "confer with the City on all development review decisions affecting [a] pending annexation area" MAY THE CITY STOP CONNECTING WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS IN THE UGA? • Cities generally do not have to provide utility service outside their boundaries. Cities that choose to serve outside their boundaries "may impose reasonable and lawful conditions before doing so." MT Development, LLC v. City of Renton, 140 Wn. App. 422, 165 P.3rd 427 (2007). Requiring a prospective wastewater customer to agree to annexation as a condition of connection is lawful. Id. 3 Initially, the Urban Area defined by the 1977 Agreement and the Four Party Agreement was identical. However, over time, the. 1977 Agreement and the Four Party Ageement have been amended to resize the Urban Area. At some point, the area defined as the Urban Area under these agreements diverged, with the result that the Urban Area defined under the Four Party Agreement is now more extensive than that defined under the 1977 Agreement. As a result, there is some ambiguity in what area is subject to regional planning. However, Section 10.I.0 of the Four Party Agreement provides that the RPC "shall serve as the long range planning body for the Urban Area." In addition, we understand that the RPC has engaged in planning for areas outside the Urban Area as that area is defined by the 1977 Agreement. As a result, under the Four Party Agreement and as confirmed by the parties' course of dealing, it is reasonable to conclude that the Urban Area is defined by the Four Party Agreement and not by the 1977 Agreement. 4 This agreement is teiminable in November 2010 upon 180 days prior notice. 3 • The Four Party Agreement and a multitude of other related agreements clearly demonstrate that the City has purposely conditioned its willingness to provide wastewater service outside the city limits on: o having a substantial role in planning for the Urban Area; and o being able to annex the areas it serves. • If the County elects not to participate in the regional planning activities as required under the Four Party Agreement, that refusal could invalidate the Four Party Agreement because regional planning activities were an essential element of the consideration provided by the County in exchange for the City's promise to serve the Urban Area. • An unintentional result of carving the RPC out of the planning process for these unincorporated areas may also constitute a breach of the County's obligations under the Four Party Agreement. • Either a breach or invalidation could affect the other parties' obligations under the Four Party Agreement. • It is clear that the City has assumed a conditional duty to serve new customers in the unincorporated portions of the Urban Area; it is far less clear what the scope of that duty is absent the Four Party Agreement and the associated planning agreements. • The City is continuing to evaluate how the County's recent action will affect the City's provision of sewer service outside the City limits. "BEFORE AND AFTER" ANALYSIS The following table provides a "before and after" view of key issues relating to City's potential duty to serve in the Urban Area. ISSUE UNDER THE AGREEMENTS AFTER COUNTY IN PLACE WITHDRAWAL FROM RPC Who has authority to plan for RPC. Disputed. County believes it will the Urban Area? have sole authority. Assuming the planning agreements remain in effect, the City believes the agreements will remain valid and as a result the RPC will continue to have authority. Are the regional planning Yes. Unclear — may be disputed. agreements in effect? County's position regarding the status of the agreements is unknown. The agreements contemplate that 4 ISSUE UNDER THE AGREEMENTS AFTER COUNTY IN PLACE WITHDRAWAL FROM RPC they will remain in force if only one party withdraws. Is the Four Party Agreement in Unclear; arguably it may have Unclear, The present status appears effect? expired, but presently that has not to be that it would remain in force. been established. However, County's withdrawal from RPC may invalidate or breach the Four Pa A: Bement. If the Four Party Agreement is The City must provide service in The City likely must continue to in effect, what duty does the the Urban Area in exchange for the serve existing customers. City have to provide other parties' compliance with their wastewater service in the lawful obligations. Clearly if the Unclear as to proposed new Urban Area? County complied with the customers. The City may take the conditions of the Four Party position that, because the County is Agreement, the City would have a in continuing breach of the Four relatively broad duty to serve in the Party Agreement's requirement for unincorporated Urban, Area. joint planning, the City is excused from performing as to the County and the unincorporated Urban Area. This outcome is most likely for areas that would require an extension of ci facilities. If the Four Party Agreement is Unclear. This would depend upon Unclear. Answer would likewise not in effect, what duty does a thorough review of numerous depend in part on a review ofsuch the City have to documents to determine specific documents. Answer will also unconditionally serve the conditions of service (annexation depend, in part, upon how the City Urban Area? and joint planning) were responds to the County's articulated. These would include announcement of its withdrawal planning documents; sewer system from the RPC. In any event it plans; municipal ordinances; past would have to continue serving course of dealin:, etc. existin • customers. What risks would the City face n/a Arguably, the County could if the County had sole demand, through unilateral land use planning authority in the decisions, that the City extend Urban Area and the City - sewer service to locations of the retained a duty to serve? County's choosing, regardless of whether the City wished or had planned to serve the area on the County's timeline, or even had downstream capacity. This could be very costly and undermine the City's ability to manage its system. Over time, it would drive up the cost of service (and rates to City ratepayers), and could adversely affect the City's ability to secure financing on reasonable terms. Could the City terminate or n/a It probably could not terminate 5 ISSUE UNDER THE AGREEMENTS AFTER COUNTY IN PLACE WITHDRAWAL FROM RPC limit its duty to serve? service to existing customers. It is reasonable to assume it could extinguish or limit its duty to serve new customers, for example, by: • Requiring annexation prior to service. • Informing the County Planning department that it will not serve new customers/new areas or that it will only serve to specific densities as determined by system capacity. • Revising ordinances, planning documents, etc. to clarify its position • Imposing a moratorium on new connections to provide time for the City to (a) develop a policy regarding service in the Urban Area in light of the County's abrogation of the current Four Party Agreement; or (b) invoke dispute resolution; and/or (c) negotiate new agreements with participating local governments It will be more reasonable to limit extensions of new lines than connections to existing lines, however, density of development utilizing existing lines would have to be a consideration. The City could increase rates to Urban Area customers in recognition of the increased costs of serving a large area where the City has little or no control over development. What is the duty of the City The City believes that in accord The County has expressed a desire and County to reach common with the GMA , the Agreements at to continue to seek a solution to development standards within issue in this memorandum, the common development standards, the Urban Area? County Wide Planning Policy and however by separating itself from 6 ISSUE UNDER THE AGREEMENTS AFTER COUNTY IN PLACE WITHDRAWAL FROM RPC others, the County is obligated to one overseeing decision making reach agreement with the City on body (RPC) and choosing to take a common development standards for unilateral decision-making position development occurring within the for development in the Urban Area Urban Area, to be compatible and it is uncertain what motivation consistent with development might continue to exist to encourage associated with City urban that process. The City believes the development. The County has not County's withdrawal from the RPC agreed with the City that the level and arguably the 1977 Agreement of development, particularly with will hinder, not assist in reaching regard to sidewalks, street lighting the common standards goals that and other amenities associated with underlie the formation of the an urbanizing area, should Intergovernmental Committee. demonstrate deference to the City development standards. 7 • BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE MAT1ER OF GIVING NOTICE OF } YAKIMA COUNTY'S INTENTION TO RESOLUTION 401-2009 WITHDRAW FROM URBAN YAIUMA. AREA } REGIONAL PLANNING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the County of Yakima, the City of Yakima, and Town of Union Gap executed the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement, (the Agreement) on January 25, 1977; and, WHEREAS, the Agreement has been amended by agreement of the parties on several occasions since its original adoption; and, WHEREAS, Section X.B. of the Agreement, as amended, provides that if any one party desires to withdraw from the Agreement, that party shall notify the Joint Board, in writing, of that party's intention by not later than September 1 of any year to be effective on January 1 of the following year; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners deems it to be in the public interest for Yakima County to withdraw from the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement and that such action would further the goal of cooperative and coordinated planning within the urban growth boundary; now, therefore, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners that Yakima County will withdraw from the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement, Effective January 1, 2010; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Joint Board, the Yakima City Manager, and the Mayor of the City of Yakima .and the City of Union Gap. DONE this 25 day of August 2009. a, r J. . 44/Elliott, Chairman c).• /V Q; . - C1 6% t. — 0 • ti 0 z : F.. cc 414 Attest: •• Michael D. Leita, Commissioner • • 1 . 4; 0\` task v itC1 'ae Christina S. Steiner, Clerk of the Board /vin J. iof chey, Commissioner consilhomue 1' foeffer 0/County Commiwarcers f Yakios4 County, Washirtglon - . , ., rill■ OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER • t .,. 7 * .■:i, -• 129 North Second Street ..,1 CITY HALL, Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6040 ...—...-- August 21, 2009 Board of Yakima County Commissioners 128 N. 2," Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Commissioners: We understand the Yakima County Commissioners are prepared to begin the process to withdraw from the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement. The City of Yakima only recently became informed of the Board of County Commissioners plan during the Intergovernmental Committee meeting on July 28, 2009. Since that time, we have endeavored to conduct our own research into this matter, but there has not been sufficient time to engage the full City Council, much less bring together all parties to the agreement to discuss the intent and impact such a decision would have on all of our jurisdictions and citizens. It would seem that this proposed action by Yakima County is premature. Before any formal action by the Board of County Commissioners is implemented, all parties to this agreement should meet to better understand the County's contemplated action and to discuss what alternatives exist to assure that regional planning continues in a productive manner for the overall health and benefit of the entire area. Although the Notice of Intent may be timely with respect to existing agreements, a January 1 deadline does not provide sufficient time for serious coordination and thoughtful discussion of the interests of all parties. If the driving force behind the County's accelerated schedule is the goal of providing notice to the City of Yakima and Union Gap ninety days before January 1, 2010, we would support an amendment to waive the current notice requirement. If such an amendment would allow more time for dialogue or discussion I believe all parties would agree. The leaders of our community, including County Commissioners Rice, Conrad and Lambert, in 1 976 developed and adopted a visionary Regional Planning Agreement. They recognized the need for intergovernmental coordination, cooperation and communications long before such efforts became mainstream for growing and healthy communities, or were required by • State Law. We would submit that much has been accomplished in the last 32 years since this agreement was enacted. Yakima • ...:...., on I , III/ 1994 When and how development occurs in West Valley and Terrace Heights has a direct impact on the cities of Yakima and Union Gap, and visa versa. The Yakima Urban Area is a continuous system of topography, water courses, roads, utilities, and development. All residents in the Urban Area, including those residing in the associated cities are also County residents. The area within the City of Yakima and Union Gap contributes over 40% of the County's total property tax revenue and 15% of sales taxes collected within City limits. An Urban Area with a regional planning approach is consistent with sound land use planning and development principals. The following goals, as articulated in the various Agreements, although not yet fully achieved, remain significant and pertinent. A single Planning Commission in the Urban Area is intended to assist in: 1. Creating uniformity in Land Use regulation throughout the Urban Area in terms of process and expectations for the developer and the public; 2. Developing common development standards between jurisdictions to ensure consistent improvements and requirements; 3. Encouraging urban level density to support infrastructure of public sewer, streets and related improvements; 4. Formulating and adopting a Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Area that would guide future development including land use densities, utilities, streets, public services; 5. Establishing a system of communication and cooperation between all parties concerning planning and development; 6. Providing a single body to make land use policy recommendations to all jurisdictions in the area. Enclosed is the City of Yakima's legal analysis of the potential impacts from Yakima County's expressed intent to withdraw from the Regional Planning Agreement. We respectfully request Yakima County to review this analysis with the County legal and planning staff and that we initiate a dialogue with all impacted parties at the earliest possible opportunity. Very truly yours, Dick Zais City Manager Attachment C: Yakima City Council Union Gap City Council Legal Analysis of Yakima County Intent to Withdraw from the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney DATE: August 20, 2009 During the Intergovernmental Committee Meeting held July 28, 2009 the Committee was advised by Yakima County representatives that the County intended to withdraw from the Yakima Regional Planning Commission (RPC), and that from that point forward the cities of Yakima and Union Gap as well as Yakima County should each rely on their own planning commissions within their own jurisdictional areas. It was further explained that the County intended to provide the planning and development oversight for the Yakima Urban Growth Area through the County Planning Commission. Following this statement of intent, Commissioner Leita advised the Committee that this was not a final decision and invited remarks from the City addressing this intent. This memorandum is provided to assert a legal response from the City regarding the perceived consequences to the City, as a party to the Four Party Agreement and the Planning Agreement in the event Yakima County withdraws from its participation in the Regional Planning Commission. 1. The County's withdrawal from the RPC will not eliminate RPC oversight of UGA. The County's authority to unilaterally withdraw from the Regional Planning Commission is dependant upon three interrelated underlying agreements that have been amended numerous times since their initial approval by the parties thereto. Those agreements are: 1. Urban Yakima Area Planning and Development Agreement — 11/12/1974 2. Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Services — 2/23/1976 3. Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement — 1/25/1977 It appears that the County intends to withdraw from the 1977 Agreement, as is permitted by Section X.B therein, insofar as that Agreement solidified the role of the RPC. Under the terms of the 1977 Agreement, a party's withdrawal will result in the termination of the withdrawing party's participation in the RPC and the Joint Board. While it may appear that section 1 of the 1974 Agreement, as amended, provides independent authority for the County's participation in the Joint Board, when read together with the 1982 amendments of all three agreements, the provision for termination of participation in the Joint Board upon withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement was preserved. Therefore, the collective intent of the agreements is such that should a party withdraw from the 1977 Agreement, its participation in both the RPC and the Joint Board will terminate. However, the existence of the RPC will not. It is the City's understanding of the terms and conditions of these three interrelated agreements that the result of the County's withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement would be that the City of Yakima and the City of Union Gap would continue as members of the RPC and the Joint Board, 1 which the City of Union Gap recently confirmed it desired to continue participating in. In accord with the 1974 Agreement, the 1976 Agreement (Four Party Agreement), and the 1977 Agreement, the remaining parties will continue to conduct regional planning activities within the Urban Area. To summarize, the County's unilateral withdrawal from the 1977 Agreement would not dissolve the RPC or alter the RPC's designated sole authority to provide regional planning oversight within the Urban Area. The City derives this opinion from the language of the Four Party Agreement, Section 10.I.C, which provides that the RPC "shall serve as the long range planning body for the Urban Area." The area designated "urban area" in the 1977 Agreement has also been amended from time to time, reflected in the RPC's planning oversight for the expanded Urban Growth Area in recent years. 2. County withdrawal from the RPC/1977 Agreement could have detrimental cascading impact on numerous interlocal agreements, relationships and responsibilities. If the County ultimately chooses to withdraw from the 1977 Agreement it is the City's opinion that the County would continue to have an obligation to coordinate planning in the Urban Growth Area with the City. Again, in accord with Section 10.I.0 of the Four Party Agreement, "[t]he land within the planning boundary shall be controlled by the respective legislative bodies of the parties to this agreement using a single long range comprehensive plan and common zoning and subdivision law." In addition to this understanding, the City - County Inter local Agreement from November, 2000 imposes duties on the City and County to cooperate in planning activities, including the duty to "promote orderly development of the City through annexation" and the duty to "confer with the City on all development review decisions affecting [a] pending annexation area". Finally, if the County determined that it would not participate in continued cooperative regional planning as established by the several agreements identified above, the Four Party Agreement could also be in jeopardy, insofar as regional cooperative planning was and remains an essential element of the County's consideration that was exchanged for the City's promise to provide sewer service to areas beyond the municipal boundaries within the Urban Area. Similarly a refusal to participate in cooperative regional planning might constitute a breach of the County's obligations under the Four Party Agreement. In either case, party obligations under the Agreement could be affected, and potentially could raise issues surrounding the City's previous agreement to provide sewer service in the unincorporated portions of the Urban Area. In summary, the City perceives the close interrelationship of the three agreements identified above as laying out a course of intended cooperative planning and development. Although there is provision in the 1977 Agreement for a party to withdraw from it if it chose to, the RPC shall retain planning jurisdiction over the UGA. Further, withdrawal could result in a cascading ripple effect throughout the rest of the agreements that most certainly have not been fully identified or considered at this point. The RPC is clearly the planning body empowered by the Four Party Agreement to provide regional planning oversight for the Urban Area, and it appears equally as clear that a party's decision to withdraw from the subsequent 1977 Agreement would not result in the dissolution of that body's existence or authority. 2 BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weekly Agenda Meeting Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 10:00 AM City Council Chambers, 129 North 2 Street, Yakima, Washington • PRESENT: • • PRESENTATION: Brian Hunt — 20 Years of Service to Yakima County-presented by Steve Hill • PRESENTATION: ESGR Certificates presented by Wayne Morse • PUBLIC COMMENT: • CONSENT ITEMS: bP ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION • - - PUBLIC SERVICES Reso 398-2009 In the Matter of Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Cheyne Landfill Cell 2 Expansion Phase 1; Vern Redifer, Director SP3353: Reso 399-2009 In the Matter of Temporarily Closing a Portion of Nile Road at Dry Creek and at Nile Creek Crossing Structures; C2892: Reso 401-2009 In the Matter of Giving Notice of Yakima County's Intention to Withdraw from the Urban Yakima Area Regional Planning Agreement: Agreement Execute Professional Services Agreement Amendment 1 with Anderson Perry Associates, Inc. to Provide Septage Lagoon Project Services: Agreement Execute Agreement with Ryan A. Davis, Aaron R. Davis and Barbara Davis for Lease of Stockpile Site: Agreement Execute Agreement for Services with Inland Potable Services for Terrace Heights Water System: COMMISSIONERS Reso 402-2009 In the Matter of Appointment of Denny Newell to the South Central Workforce Development Council, Board J. Rand Elliott, Chairman of Directors, Position #8: Minutes Re-Approve Agenda Minutes of August 11, 2009: Minutes Approve Agenda Minutes of August 18, 2009: Voucher/Warrant Certification of Claims Clearing Warrant No. 530117 through 531341 in the Amount of $3,333,104.78: FACILITIES SERVICES Reso 403-2009 In the Matter of Awarding Bid to Stephens & Sons Construction for Work Associated with Courthouse Brad Songhurst, Director Jury Assembly /Mailroom Alterations: Agreement Execute Contract with Stephens & Sons Construction, Inc. for Construction of the Courthouse Jury Assembly/ Mailroom Alterations: HUMAN SERVICES Agreement Execute Supportive Housing Agreement with Yakima Steve Hill, Director Neighborhood Health Services; SHA 906 09: Agreement Execute Supportive Housing Agreement with Yakima Neighborhood Health Services for Leasing and Supportive Services; SHP1 YNHS 09: C:\Documents and Settings\kevinw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMZ6JYEV18 25 09.doc Page I of2 DEPARTMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION • ASSESSMENT & Reso 404-2009 In the Matter of Approving Agreements with Triumph REFERRAL SVCS Treatment Services, Sundown M Ranch, Central WA Comprehensive Mental Health, Merit Resource Services and Casa de Esperanza and Authorize Signing Brian Hunt, Prgm Manager of Same: Agreement Execute Dependency Provider Contract with Triumph Treatment Services; TR1 FY 2010: Agreement Execute Dependency Provider Contract with Sundown M Ranch; SMR FY 2010: Agreement Execute Dependency Provider Contract with Central WA Comprehensive Mental Health; CWCMH FY 2010: Agreement Execute Dependency Provider Contract with Merit Resource Services; MRS FY 2010: Agreement Execute Dependency Provider Contract with Casa de Esperanza; CDE FY 2010: PURCHASING Reso 405-2009 In the Matter of Making Findings and Determination to Declare Surplus and Sell Certain Personal County Rhonda Counts, Interim Agent Property: Agreement Execute Agreement with Bilko Towing for Yakima Sheriff's Office: • REGULAR AGENDA: DEPARTMENT ITEM " ' DFSCR[PTION ACTION PUBLIC SERVICES Reso 400-2009 In the Matter of Awarding Bid for the Cheyne Landfill Septage Lagoons to Scarsella Brothers, Inc.; SP3265: Vem Redifer, Director • • 10:30 AM — PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC SERVICES: COD05-302 — Brooks/Dawkins on Stover Road, Grandview CADocuments and Settings \kevinw \Local SettingslTernporary Internet Files\Content Outlook \QMZ6.1YEV18 25 09.doc Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION R- 2004- 30 A RESOLUTION affirming and restating the annexation policy of the City of Yakima. WHEREAS, the general policies of the State of Washington, as expressed in the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Boundary Review Board statutes (Chapter 36.93 RCW), and other statutes providing for annexation of unincorporated areas into cities strongly encourage cities like the City of Yakima to annex adjacent unincorporated areas characterized by urban development; WHEREAS, the Washington Growth Management Act requires the City to create an urban growth plan, identifies domestic water service and sewer service as urban services, and identifies the City as the most appropriate, provider of urban services within the urban growth area, and urbanized properties should receive urban governmental services including full-time professional fire protection and municipal police protection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1976 four party Agreement for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Services between Yakima County, the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap and the Terrace Heights Sewer District (the "1976 Four Party Agreement"), the City of Yakima has owned and operated a wastewater treatment plant; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap and the Terrace Heights Sewer District jointly declared in the 1976 Four Party Agreement that residents and property owners within the urban boundary shall "be encouraged to annex to the adjoining city or town for municipal services, including sewer services" and that "property owners within the Yakima urban area who seek sewer service, through the formation of LID's or otherwise, shall be subject to the condition" of annexation or execution of an Outside Utility Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has, also pursuant to, the 1976 Four Party Agreement and in reliance on its terms, extended sewer trunk lines to unincorporated portions of the Yakima urban area; and WHEREAS, The City of Yakima has, also pursuant to the 1976 Four Party Agreement and in reliance on its terms, provided wastewater disposal and treatment services to unincorporated properties in the Yakima urban area on the basis of Outside Utility Agreements, in which, in exchange for wastewater disposal and treatment services, the owners of properties receiving such way It GA SI I II P la, %.0%..GGli came IncluvGI y 1.%./ II ltALIUC Will III I services commit such property to annexation by the Petition Method of annexation authorized by RCW 35.13.125-.160; and WHEREAS, Outside Utility Agreements were declared legally valid contracts by the Washington Supreme Court in a unanimous decision issued in September 1993, which also upheld various aspects of the City's policies; and WHEREAS, the Washington Supreme declared the petition method of annexation to be constitutional in a unanimous decision issued in January 2004; and WHEREAS, since the 1976 Four Party Agreement was established and especially since the early 1990s, agricultural and other undeveloped lands in some unincorporated portions of the Yakima urban area have undergone extensive subdivision and residential and commercial development, and are now essentially urbanized; and WHEREAS, the subdivision, improvement, urbanization, and substantial increases in assessed values of such unincorporated properties has been a direct result of the City of Yakima's policy, maintained in reliance on the terms of the 1976 Four Party Agreement, to extend wastewater collection and treatment service to unincorporated properties on the basis of property owners' commitments of their properties, by Outside Utility Agreements, to annexation by the Petition Method of annexation authorized by RCW 35.113.125-.160; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of residents and property owners in urbanized areas to have full-time professional fire and police protection and other urban governmental services that the City of Yakima can provide; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Yakima and the entire community that the City of Yakima proceed affirmatively to include within its boundaries urbanized properties which are appropriate for annexation; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The City of Yakima shall, notwithstanding any previous declarations of policy, including without limitation Resolution 93-17, proceed with annexation according to such method of annexation authorized by law and in its discretion the City may determine is appropriate, including without limitation annexation by the Petition Method authorized by RCW 35.13.125-.160, and further the City of Yakima shall utilize Outside Utility Agreements to meet the requirements of the Petition Method and for such other purposes as may be appropriate. The City Council of the City of Yakima does hereby affirm and restate the following historic statement of policy regarding the provision of City water and sewer services to properties outside the corporate limits of the City of Yakima but within the Yakima Urban Area, as such provision is related to the annexation of such properties to the City: 1. When such service is sought for property contiguous to existing city limits, and the size of the property is sufficiently large to merit its annexation, in the opinion of the Director of Planning and Community Development, the annexation of that property to the City shall be a condition of its receiving such service. 2. An application for such service to any other property outside the corporate limits of the City of Yakima but within the Yakima urban area will be granted only after it has been determined that it is impractical or not feasible to annex that property to the City within the near future, and only under circumstances which will allow the development of that property to be controlled by city codes, regulations and policies, all as if such property were within the City. Any such grant shall include a condition requiring the execution by the owner of the property of an Outside Utility Agreement in a form approved by resolution of the City. 3. The City shall implement its annexation policy as follows with respect to formation of utility local improvement districts in the Yakima urban area. Prior to approving formation of a utility local improvement district, the City will require the execution of Outside Utility Agreements representing at least 75% of the assessed value of the area proposed for inclusion in such district. With the approval of the City Council based upon considerations of public health, safety and welfare, the signature of such Outside Utility Agreement for a particular property may be deferred until some time after the district has been formed but prior to the time the property is connected. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, this 17 day of February, 2004. 8-( Paul George, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk , ,