HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2024 03.E. Final Annexation Study report r:-
`y s ljlt
ki e I I&1- ii!
'I!I/
". . r J
•
•
s .
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 3.E.
For Meeting of: July 23, 2024
ITEM TITLE: Final Annexation Study report
SUBMITTED BY: Bill Preston, Community & Economic Development Director
*Trevor Martin, Planning Manager
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update regarding the annexation study undertaken by
the City utilizing the FCS Group. The study is now completed. Staff will provide an overview of the areas
under study and any updates. Memo has been provided regarding annexation methods.
ITEM BUDGETED: N/A
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Strengthening Partnerships
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yakima Growth and Annexation Analysis Report 07.12.24
Memo_election.method
MRSC_Election Method
Presentation Annexation Study Update - 7.19.2024
166
City of Yakima
Growth Plan and
Annexation Study
REPORT
July 12, 2024
•
* Washington
• 7525 166th Avenue NE,Ste.D215
Redmond,WA 98052
425.867.1802
Oregon
5335 Meadows Road,Ste 330
Lake Oswego,OR 97035
503.841.6543
Colorado
2755 Canyon Blvd
Boulder,CO 80302
719.284.9168
www.fcsgroup.com
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
167
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 3
Study Purpose 3
Summary of Findings 3
Report Organization 4
Planning Background 4
Overview Of Study Areas 5
II. Community Overview 8
Population and Income 8
Employment and Unemployment 9
Development Overview 10
Commercial and Industrial Market Potential 11
III. Subarea Development Potential 13
Buildable Land Inventory 13
Study Area Opportunities and constraints 14
Area 1 Terrace Heights 14
Area 1A Terrace Heights Subarea 16
Area 2 South Airport 17
Area 3 Bachelor Creek 18
Area 4 West Valley 19
Area 5 Northwest 22
Infrastructure and Serviceability 23
IV. Fiscal Impact Assessment 25
Methodology 25
Fiscal Impact Drivers 26
General Government fiscal Impacts 27
Finn Headquarters Locations page i
Rednond Town Center Washington 1425.867.1802
7525166",Ave NE,Ste D-215 Oregon 1503.841.6543
Rednond,Washington 98052 Colorado 1719.284.9168 168
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Short-Term Fiscal Impacts 28
Long-Term Fiscal Impacts 30
Overall Fiscal Impacts 31
Summary&Policy Considerations 32
Appendix A: Buildable Land Inventory Methodology 33
Appendix B: ESRI Market Data 37
•:> F S. GROUP page ii 169
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
. INTRODUCTION
STUDY PURPOSE
The Yakima Growth Plan and Annexation Study provides a current understanding of how future
annexations and resulting changes in population, housing, employment and assessed valuation levels
impact the City's municipal budget. The findings are intended to inform future annexation decisions
by considering the fiscal impacts of growth and development on the City of Yakima.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Yakima Annexation Growth Study provides a relative comparison of the relative costs and
benefits of serving potential areas outside the current City limits. This analysis considers community
growth opportunities for housing and employment over the long-term. The study included an
assessment of existing development conditions and future buildable lands for each study area. A
baseline growth forecast for housing and employment in each area is provided to ascertain the
relative fiscal impacts on General Government revenues and expenditures.
These findings also consider the near-term infrastructure serviceability and relative capital costs for
each area.
Key Findings:
• Subarea lA—Terrace Heights and Area 4—West Valley received the highest
infrastructure and public facility serviceability rankings. However, there are significant
transportation, sanitary sewer and water system capital investments that would need to be
made for these areas to fully develop.
• The findings indicate that annexations, on average, have an overall positive net annual
fiscal impact on the City's General Fund that equates to $575 per person, $890 per non-
retail job and $1,532 per retail job if added to the City (Table S-1).
• Based on current development conditions, land use regulations and buildable lands,the
most positive annual General Fund fiscal impacts per acre are expected to be generated
within Subarea lA—Terrace Heights and Area 2—South Airport.
• Local land use policies and regulations that encourage or incentivize a mix of housing types
(such as townhomes and apartments) can measurably enhance the overall fiscal benefit that
can be achieved in each annexation areas.
Table S-1 Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts on Yakima General Fund
Avg.Annual General Fund Impact Per Pop. &Per Job(2024$)
Average Annual Impact FY 2014-2023
GF Revenue GF Expense Net GF Impact
Gen.Fund Impact Per Pop. $ 2,434 $ (1,859) $ 575
Gen. Fund Impact Per Avg.job $ 5,117 $ (4,227) $ 890
Gen. Fund Impact Per Retail job $ 5,759 $ (4,227) $ 1,532
4> FCS GROUP page 3 170
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report and its findings are described in the following sections.
I. Introduction & Summary
Study Purpose
Summary of Findings
Report Organization
Overview of the Study Areas
II. Community Overview
Population and Income
Employment and Unemployment
Development Overview
III. Subarea Development Potential
Buildable Land Inventory
Development Opportunities and Constraints
Infrastructure Serviceability
IV. Fiscal Sustainability Assessment
Methodology
General Government Fiscal Impacts
Summary & Policy Considerations
PLANNING BACKGROUND
The City of Yakima is a unique community with a rich and colorful history. Originally incorporated
in 1883,the City of Yakima established itself as an agricultural and manufacturing hub on the banks
of the Naches River and Yakima River in Central Washington. The City serves as the primary
commercial and industrial service center for residents of Yakima County, and the greater Central
Washington region.
This study was completed over a six-month period using current and long-range planning and
budgeting assumptions for the City of Yakima. Selected background planning initiatives include:
• We Are Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
• City of Yakima Economic Development Strategic Plan
• City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan, 2017
• City of Yakima Housing Action Plan
• Yakima Downtown Master Plan
• Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan, 1999
• Terrace Heights Water System Plan, 2019
• Nob Hill Water System Master Plan, 2022 Update.
•4•> FCS GROUP page 4 171
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 1: Yakima Future Land Category Map
t l! . YAKIMA 2040
- Ito COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
"-"'"" Future Land Use
. 1-'3 .. illi .----c..„.,
����. Gen eralizedCategones
ISi a �.:�� Low Dens}ry Residental
I.• 10. Mixed Residential
k ■Central Vuaness Core Commernal
1.1
Commerual MixtlO Use■Regional Commercial
' Community Mued Vse
/ 1 mdustnal
. 0 Yakima City Limlh
1 I J J 17 �U _i Urban Growth Area
�r --J l� = A
-�s-
0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
N l � i 2 4 0 hill iillittl
a f spr"' .-°,, 1.1 N.
t YAIVma GI$ j�
t--..w.r�m „ May.2017 1_k I !I
The Future Land the Map illustrates the combination of current land use.current toning.and future uses of each parcel of land within the City of Yakima.The map category is necessary to provide cerla:nty to the \'�. _y
community members,residents,and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them.And,where to expect future services.and development based on the goals,imbues and oblectwes
of this Plan 70a0.
OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREAS
This study focuses on an evaluation of five potential areas where future annexations may be expected
to occur. The five study areas are shown in Exhibits 2A and 2B. Each of these areas have unique
environmental features and variations in existing land use and infrastructure conditions.
An overview of each study area is provided below. For a more detailed map of land constraints and
buildable lands within each study area, please refer to Appendix A.
Area 1 Terrace Heights
• Encompasses the relatively well-developed Terrace Heights area of unincorporated Yakima
County.
• Area 1 primarily consists of single family residential along with a mix of commercial and
multifamily along main roadways.
• Transportation infrastructure investment is needed, particularly replacement of a bridge crossing
the Yakima River.
• The area could accommodate significant levels of additional employment and housing, but major
roadway improvements will be necessary before that can occur.
• Within Terrace Heights Subarea IA has most of the non-residential development potential in
Terrace Heights. It is estimated that the subarea area could accommodate only 53 of the 2,713
new housing units anticipated in Terrace Heights. However, the area includes capacity for 2,069
1*:) FCS GROUP page 5 172
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
of the 2,373 new jobs anticipated in Terrace Heights, including 770 service sector jobs and 1,299
industrial jobs.
Exhibit 2A: Yakima Annexation Study Area 1
a
4
SABIlk J IV:,.. i. '.
, .7,
fil
•.A(REA 1 ,-*I i
i . •
1 4 f .,
a 101iJr • a, .
is
Area 2 South Airport
• Includes areas located immediately south and west of the Yakima Airport.
• Recent annexation has been occurring in this area with sewer and transportation infrastructure
being expanded as development occurs.
• This area is primarily being planned for single-family detached and attached housing.
Area 3 Bachelor Creek
• Includes the area southwest of the Yakima city limits.
• Predominantly agricultural land with some single-family detached dwelling units in the Wiley
City area.
• Floodplains in the area are a significant barrier to future development.
• Sewer service will require significant extension and is another barrier to future development.
+.> FCS GROUP page 6 173
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 4 West Valley
• Potential annexation area bordering the city's western boundary.
• Expected to accommodate planned middle housing (such as plexes and apartments) and some
neighborhood-scale commercial.
• Water and transportation infrastructure investments are required.
Area 5 Northwest
• Area located northwest of current city boundaries.
• Highly desirable location for larger lot single-family detached dwellings given exceptional views
across the Yakima Valley.
• Transportation, wastewater and water infrastructure will all pose challenges due to relatively
steep terrain and limited existing access.
Exhibit 2B: Yakima Annexation Study Areas 2-5
1 v,.-, ,.,..7.\-\_, _._,,,_,-----___,-_.,___.
r . .._.
wi" ,.--s,t4,.•.
•
AREAS —1 �. ■ �:. T
�•r y `R
•
E II
AREA 4 - '), 5. _ 1,
—
T Yoa . T. • X 1_
t
1 s is .
•,,�.,.P� i -.t' L 1 4
_ —I AREA 2 _ "-- _ '. .
,- `AREA"3 J _.."C - •.
Lei •. _.
"` yid' tt. .. F
—_ = (I I 1 IIl 1 t
,,
4> FCS GROUP page 7 174
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
II . COMMUNITY OVERVIEW
As part of this study, an overview of current demographic and socio-economic trends and forecasts
were evaluated to document future needs for housing and employment land. Key findings are
summarized below.
POPULATION AND INCOME
The City of Yakima achieved a record-high population of 98,650 people in 2023. Yakima County
also attained a new record with 261,200 residents. Over the past two decades, the City of Yakima
population growth has outpaced the County and State of Washington (Exhibit 3). However, since the
global COVID-19 pandemic ended in 2020, population growth in Yakima slowed considerable.
Exhibit 3: Population Trends, 2000-2023
LAM Change:
(2000- AGR(2000-
2000 2010 2020 22 2023 2023) 20234
Washington 5,894,121 6,561,297 7,706,310 7,766,975 7,864,400 7,951,150 2,057,029 1.31%
Yakima County 222,581 236,542 256,728 258,100 259,950 261,200 38,619 0.70%
City of Yakima 72,294 88,630 96,968 97,810 98,200 98,650 26,356 1.36%
City of Selah 6,310 6,899 8,153 8,235 8,365 8,450 2,140 1.28%
City of Toppenish 8,946 8,820 8,854 8,870 8,870 8,900 (46) -0.02%
Terrace Hei.hts CDP 6,447 6,679 8,917 9,114 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source:U.S. Census,American Community Survey, Washington Office of Financial Management
AGR:Compound Annual Growth Rate. CDP:Census Defined Place.
In 2020, the median household income in the City of Yakima was $50,673, up significantly from
$39,706 in 2010. Despite the recent increase in local income levels, household incomes within the
City remain well below Yakima County and the state of Washington (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 4: Income Trends, 2010-2023
Median Household Income, 2010, 2021
$90,000 $82,400
$80,000
$70,000 -
$60,000 $57,244 $58,380
$50,673
$50,000 - $42,877 $39,706
$40,000 -
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
so
Washington Yakima County Yakima City
■2010 ■2021
Source:U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates(Table B25010)
4> FCS GROUP page 8 175
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Like many communities across the U.S., an increasing share of Yakima households are experiencing
economic hardship as the cost of living rises faster than income levels.
In recognition of the short comings associated with federal poverty statistics,the United Way now
provides a new measure of economically distressed households struggling in each county in a state. This
effort provides a framework,to measure households that do not earn enough to afford basic necessities,
with a population segment called ALICE(Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed). The ALICE
methodlogy takes into account the total cost of household essentials —housing, child care, food,
transportation, technology, and health care, plus taxes and a 10 percent contingency. For more
information, please check out: https://www.unitedforalice.org/methodology
As of year 2021, 51%of the households in Yakima were either living in poverty or classified in the
ALICE category,which is well above the state average of 33%and the countywide average of 46%
(Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5: Poverty and ALICE Households, 2021
ALICE Households,2021
60%
51%
50% 46%
40% 33%
30%
20%
10%
Washington State Yakima County City of Yakima
Source:United for Alice,Alice Report.2022
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rate in Yakima County was 6.4% in 2022, slightly higher than the statewide
average of 4.2% during the same year(Exhibit 6).
Exhibit 6: Unemployment Rate, Washington and Yakima County 2006-2023
Unemployment Rate,Washington and Yakima County,2006-2023
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
•
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
— —Yakima County —Washington
Source:U-S.Bureau of Labor Statistics
') FCS GROUP page 9 176
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Employment within the City of Yakima has increased steadily over the last decade, from 40,147 jobs
in 2010 to 47,282 jobs in 2021 (Exhibit 7). During this time frame, growth was particularly strong in
agriculture (3,508 job increase from 2011 to 2021), health care (+2,824 jobs), public administration
(+1,025 jobs), and retail trade (+993 jobs).
Overall, the City "captured"nearly two-thirds of the net new job growth that occurred in Yakima
County between 2010 and 2021 (Exhibit 8).
Exhibit 7: Employment by Sector, City of Yakima, 2011-2021
Sector 2010 2021 Change AGR
Ag.&Industrial 9,222 13,690 4,468 4.0%
Retail 4,999 5,992 993 1.8%
Service 23,880 24,529 649 0.3%
Government 2,046 3,071 1,025 4.1%
Total 40,147 47,282 7,135 1.6%
Source:U.S.Census On the Map data.
Exhibit 8: Employment by Sector, Yakima County, 2011-2021
2011 AGR
Industrial 36,660 46,246 9,586 2.4%
Retail 8,809 9,891 1,082 1.2%
Service 41,382 43,107 1,725 0.4%
Government 5,749 4,406 (1,343) -2.6%
Total 92,600 103,650 11,050 1.1%
Source: U.S. Census On the Map data.
DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
In 2022, there were 36,623 housing units in the City of Yakima of which 18,494 units were classified
as owner-occupied, 16,336 units were renter-occupied and 1,793 units were considered as seasonal
housing, vacant or for-sale. Overall vacancy rates for housing in Yakima is below 4.9% currently.
Like most cities in Washington, single-family detached housing is the most prevalent housing type
representing 60%of the local housing stock. The remaining housing inventory in Yakima includes
townhomes and plexes (18%), multifamily (16%) and mobile homes (6%), as shown in Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9: Existing Housing Inventory, 2022, City Yakima
Housing Units by Housing Type, Yakima,2022
16%
•Single Family Detached
•Townhomes 1 Plexes
•Multifamily(5+units)
18% 60% ®Mobile home/other
Source:U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates(Table B25032)
4*:) FCS GROUP page 10 177
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Building permit activity in Yakima over the 2018-2022 timeframe indicates strong market support for
the development of additional multifamily (apartments), which accounted for over half(53%) of all
new housing units that were constructed in the City (Exhibit 10).
Exhibit 10: Dwelling Units Added by Category, 2018-2022, City Yakima
Total Average Annual
Single Family 648 162
Plexes 260 65
Multifamily 1,077 269
Mobile Homes 34 9
Total 2,019 505
Source: City of Yakima
Yakima home values have increased measurably in recent years. As indicated in Exhibit 11, median
home values in Yakima increased to $329,195 in December 2023, up 2.3% annually over the past two
years. Other cities in the region have experienced similar housing cost increases.
Exhibit 11: Home Value Index in Select Markets
Annual Avg.
Dec-21 Dec-22 Dec-23 Growth
Yakima $307,150 $321,739 $329,195 2.3%
Ellensburg $404,504 $436,419 $442,247 3.0%
Wenatchee $428,973 $448,884 $449,759 1.6%
Toppenish $227,249 $244,433 $249,245 3.1%
Source:Zillow.com;analysis by FCS.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL MARKET POTENTIAL
Third quarter 2023 real estate brokerage reports for the Yakima Market Area indicated that building
vacancy rates have remained very low at 4.6% for industrial buildings, and 2.6%for office in the
region was vacant'.
As shown above in Exhibit 7, significant growth has been occurring in the industrial and retail
sectors in Yakima over the past decade and longer. Based on the trends in job growth, FCS GROUP
prepared two job growth forecast scenarios that can be used to forecast employment land needs in
Yakima over the next ten years.
Job growth forecast Scenario 1 assumes an extrapolation of the historic rates of job growth with an
average employment density factor of 20 jobs per acre for industrial/other uses and 40 jobs per acre
for commercial and office uses. Under this growth forecast, Yakima is projected to require 215 acres
for industrial uses and 18 acres for commercial and office uses every ten years (Exhibit 12).
' Office and Industrial Market Reports prepared by the Remlinger Group using Co Star data.
•:;> FCS GROUP page 11 178
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 12: Yakima Employment Land Need Assumptions, Scenario 1
Historic
Jobs per Annual Job Land Need Acres every
Acre Growth Acres per yr 10 yrs
Industrial 20 429 21.5 215
Commercial/Office 40 73 1.8 18
Job growth forecast Scenario 2 also assumes the same level of job growth as Scenario 1, but
estimates the employment land needs based on building square footage. As shown below in Exhibit
13,the number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of building floor area range: industrial uses @ 1.5 jobs
per 1,000 SF; commercial and office uses @ 3 jobs per 1,000 SF. Using a floor-area ratio of 0.2 for
industrial and 0.35 for commercial, Yakima would require approximately 328 acres of industrial and
16 acres of commercial land over a ten-year period.
Exhibit 13: Yakima Employment Land Need Assumptions, Scenario 2
Historic Annual Land Need
Jobs Per Annual Job Building SF Floor-Area Land Need every 10 yrs
Sector 1000 SF Growth Needs Ratio Acres per Yr (Acres)
Industrial 1.5 429 286,133 0.2 32.8 328
Commercial/Office 3.0 73 24,367 0.35 1.6 16
.'
••� GROUP page 12 179
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
III . SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY
As part of this study, an estimate of the buildable land inventory (BLI) within Yakima's Growth
Areas was created to determine the amount of land available for housing and employment. The BLI
analysis uses the most current Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by the City and
County of Yakima.
The objective of the BLI is to determine the amount of developable land available for future
residential housing and economic development within the UGB. A complete description of the BLI
Methodology is provided in Appendix A. The BLI analysis is used to calculate the gross acres,
developed acres, environmentally constrained acres, and net buildable acres within each area.
As shown in Exhibit 14A and 14B,the findings indicate that the total net buildable acres within the
study areas ranges from 139 acres in Area 2—South Airport to 1,293 acres in Area 1—Terrace Heights.
Within Terrace Heights, Subarea lA accounts for approximately 301 buildable acres.
BLI findings are also utilized to depict potential new development for housing and jobs within each
study area.
Exhibit 14A: Yakima Study Area Buildable Land Assumptions
Net Net Net
Gross Buildable Buildable Buildable Total Net
Total Developed Constrain- Buildable Commerci Industrial Residentia Buildable
Subarea Acres Acres ed Acres Acres al Acres Acres I Acres Acres
1 Terrace Heights 4,510 2,022 1,024 1,464 57 267 969 1,293
2 South Airport 553 143 83 326 - 74 65 139
3 Bachelor Creek 1,084 385 218 481 - - 258 258
4 West Valley 2,056 926 164 966 48 - 848 896
5 Northwest 1,088 379 443 266 - - 317 317
Total 9,291 3,856 1,932 3,504 105 341 2,457 2,903
*includes buildable land in tax lots of 5 or more acres, excluding constrained acres
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP, Dec. 2023.
4> FCS GROUP page 13 180
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 14B: Yakima Study Area Buildable Land Assumptions
Net Net et
Buildable c uildable Buildable
Total Commercial dustrial Residential Total Net
Acres Acres cres Acres Buildable Acres
1 Terrace Heights 4,510 57 267 969 1,293
Subarea 1A 432 50 232 19 301
2 South Airport 553 - 74 65 139
3 Bachelor Creek 1,084 - - 258 258
4 West Valley 2,056 48 - 848 896
5 Northwest 1.088 - - 317 317
Total 9,291 105 341 2,457 2,903
*includes buildable land in tax lots of 5 or more acres, excluding constrained acres
Source:Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP, May 2024.
STUDY AREA OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The following section highlights unique existing characteristics of each annexation area being
considered.
Area 1 Terrace Heights
Exhibit 15 below shows an area map of Terrace Heights.
Exhibit 15: Terrace Heights Area Map
Areal
raven..,
•
w , S
6
As shown in Exhibit 16,the Terrace Heights area is the largest of the study areas with 4,510 acres
and has the most significant levels of existing development. The Terrace Heights area is home to
8,735 full-time residents, 2,642 workers, and includes nearly $1.3 billion in existing assessed
property and improvement value according to the Yakima County Assessor (2023).
4*:) FCS GROUP page 14 181
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 16: Terrace Heights Existing Conditions
Area 1 -Terrace Heights
Assessed Value $1,281,596,250
Jobs 2,642
Population 8,735
Median HH Income $70,477
Median Home Value $321,341
Median Age 43.6
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online,Yakima County Assessor
The Terrace Heights area has significant future development potential. As shown below in Exhibit
17, it is estimated that vacant buildable land in the Terrace Heights area could accommodate 2,713
new housing units as well as 2,373 additional jobs, including 1,495 industrial jobs and 878 service
jobs.
Within Terrace Heights Subarea IA has most of the non-residential development potential in Terrace
Heights. It is estimated that the subarea area could accommodate only 53 of the 2,713 new housing
units anticipated in Terrace Heights. However, the area includes capacity for 2,069 of the 2,373 new
jobs anticipated in Terrace Heights, including 770 service sector jobs and 1,299 industrial jobs.
Exhibit 17: Terrace Heights Development Potential
Subarea 1:Terrace Heights
Total Subarea lA
Potential New Dwelling Units 2,713 53
Potential New Service Jobs 878 770
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs 1,495 1,299
Potential Total Jobs 2,373 2,069
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
Area 1 Infrastructure Needs
• Water: The area is predominantly served by the Yakima County-owned Terrace Heights Water
System which serves much of the employment land in the area along with the eastern residential
areas. The remainder of Terrace Heights is served by approximately 30 separate neighborhood-
scale water utilities.
• Sewer: Most of the area is served by the Terrace Heights Sewer District with some parcels
outside the service area served by in-site systems.
• Roads and Streets: Most streets are maintained by the County. The Terrace Heights
transportation network is being planned and designed to meet standards set by the County's
Horizon 2040 Plan. Congestion along the Yakima Avenue/Terrace Heights Drive corridor has
triggered Yakima County's concurrency requirements, which limits new development permits
along this important roadway corridor. Transportation infrastructure investment is needed,
particularly replacement of a bridge crossing the Yakima River.
•4•> FCS GROUP page 15 182
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area IA Terrace Heights Subarea
The city also requested an analysis of a subarea of Terrace Heights. Exhibit 18 below shows the
boundaries of the subarea as a dashed red line.
Exhibit 18: Terrace Heights Subarea Map
I- - UM I
c\ ..
1
I .
�%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
• 1
1
•
Ilk
am am am 01,
•
.w wn.Inv.. ` -
-i
i
I
I
a 1
4
Exhibit 19: Terrace Heights Subarea Development Potential
Subarea 1A: Terrace Heights Subarea
Potential New DwellingUnits 53
Potential New Service Jobs 770
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs 1,299
Potential Total Jobs 2,069
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
4*:) FCS GROUP page 16 183
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 2 South Airport
Exhibit 20 depicts a map of the South Airport area.
Exhibit 20: South Airport Area Map
Per li
Q
le
e 1"44.° .b.ld,c Kenai Pr* Lamas
' Colmar,
i w/~N
. oryer.GrW
OM?,P., LOK.11
..,:v•li n., Com%.
♦Nw
µ
Area 2 ,,c'.,,
ALAPITANUM VALLEY
•
es ._
At 553 total acres,the South Airport area is the smallest of the five annexation areas under
consideration. This area is home to 945 full-time residents, 151 workers, and includes approximately
$107.5 million in existing assessed value (Exhibit 21).
Exhibit 21: South Airport Existing Conditions
Area 2-South Airport to Ahtanum Road
Assessed Value $107,493,400
Jobs 151
Population 945
Median HH Income $96,197
Median Home Value $326,374
Median Age 46.4
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online,Yakima County Assessor
As shown below in Exhibit 22, it is estimated that the South Airport area could accommodate 181
additional housing units as well as 414 added jobs in the future.
Exhibit 22: South Airport Development Potential
Subarea 2: South Airport
MMili Housing Units
Potential New Dwellin Units 181
Jobs
Potential New Service Jobs -
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs 414
Potential Total Jobs 414
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
4> FCS GROUP page 17 184
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 2 Infrastructure Needs
• Water: The area is currently within the Nob Hill Water District. However,the distribution
system is mostly confined to a mainline along Ahtanum Road. Water service in the South Airport
area will require expansion of the distribution system.
• Sewer: The vast majority of this area is on septic systems. The City of Yakima has several sewer
lines that run adjacent to the area including 12"pipes serving the Sozo Sports Complex and a line
running along Spring Creek Road. As with water, serving the South Airport area will require
expansion of the wastewater system.
• Roads and Streets: Streets in the area are maintained by the County, with two transportation
primary east/west arterials, including Spring Creek Road to the north and Ahtanum Road to the
south. 52"d Avenue provides the primary north/south arterial access. Expansions to the
transportation network will likely include local streets built along with development.
Area 3 Bachelor Creek
Exhibit 23 below shows an area map of Bachelor Creek.
Exhibit 23: Bachelor Creek Area Map
n is Hl
Area 3 '1 4
Y.�
IIII 14H1.y Lh...fW
The 1,084-acre Bachelor Creek/Wiley City area is located west of the Airport area and SW of current
city limits. This area is home to 1,429 residents, 282 workers, and includes $189.5 million in existing
assessed value (Exhibit 24).
Exhibit 24: Bachelor Creek Existing Conditions
Area 3-Bachelor Creek, Spring Creek to Wiley City
Assessed Value $189,504,450
Jobs 282
Population 1,429
Median HH Income $74,380
Median Home Value $367,917
Median Age 40.9
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online,Yakima County Assessor
4*:) FCS GROUP page 18 185
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
As shown below in Exhibit 25, all of the buildable land in the Bachelor Creek area is planned for
residential and the area could add approximately 722 new dwelling units in the future.
Exhibit 25: Bachelor Creek Development Potential
Subarea 3: Bachelor Creek
Housing Units
Potential New Dwellin. Units 722
Jobs
Potential New Service Jobs -
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs -
Potential Total Jobs -
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
Area 3 Infrastructure Needs
• Water: As with the South Airport area, Bachelor Creek is currently within the Nob Hill Water
District. The Bachelor Creek area has slightly more distribution in place currently, especially in
the Wiley City area and Ahtanum areas.
• Sewer: Like the South Airport area, Bachelor Creek residents are mostly on septic systems.
Existing City of Yakima sewer lines run along Ahtanum Road and the 74t'and 78t'Avenue
corridors. Servicing the area will require a significant extension along Ahtanum Road.
• Roads and Streets: The eastern portion of the Bachelor Creek area are served by Ahtanum and
Occidental Roads as well as 74t' and 78t'Avenues. Expansions to the transportation network of
eastern Bachelor Creek will likely include local streets built along with development. The Wiley
City area is connected by Ahtanum Road and is relatively well built out in terms of transportation
infrastructure.
Area 4 West Valley
Exhibit 26 shows an area map of the West Valley study area.
4> FCS GROUP page 19 186
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 26: West Valley Area Map
•
1.4
•
—I
Ares 4
_:.•
•
4v „i.. •
j s
•
.ti
Situated along Yakima western city limits,the 2,056-acre West Valley area is the second largest of
the annexation areas under consideration. The West Valley area is home to 1,352 residents, 497
workers and includes $329.8 million in assessed property value (Exhibit 27).
Exhibit 27: West Valley Existing Conditions
Area 4-West Valley to Dazet and Estes Roads
Assessed Value $329,820,980
Jobs 497
Population 1,352
Median HH Income $79,308
Median Home Value $365,269
Median Age 40.1
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online,Yakima County Assessor
The West Valley area includes significant amounts of vacant and underutilized land, along with
several parcels designated for institutional use. As shown below in Exhibit 28, it is estimated that
•4•> FCS GROUP page 20 187
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
buildable land in the West Valley area could accommodate 2,375 new housing units as well as 739
additional jobs.
Exhibit 28: West Valley Development Potential
Subarea 4:West Valley _
Housing Units
Potential New Dwellin. Units 2,375
Jobs
Potential New Service Jobs 739
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs -
Potential Total Jobs 739
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
Area 4 Infrastructure Needs
• Water: This area is also within the Nob Hill Water District. The distribution network in the West
Valley area is limited to major arterials (Tieton Dr.,Wide Hollow Rd., Summitview Ave.).
• Sewer: Most of the area is on septic systems apart from the school buildings along Zier Road.
City sewer infrastructure is in place leading to the boundary of the West Valley area but
mainlines would have to be extended to serve future development.
• Roads and Streets: Several backbone north/south and east/west arterials are present in the West
Valley area with the transportation network most complete in and around recent subdivisions.
4> FCS GROUP page 21 188
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 5 Northwest
Exhibit 29 shows a map of the Northwest subarea.
Exhibit 29: Northwest Area Map
, ,
Liotot
W _
v��• • �4ya
•
Area 5 /
}
it
1 a 4MM r0.
- nm.. r�.r MIY
' ,S..rn 1.•�Mr
The 1,088-acre Northwest area is located to the northwest of the Yakima city limits. The Northwest
area is home to 809 residents, 177 workers and includes nearly $200 million in assessed value
(Exhibit 30).
Exhibit 30: Northwest Existing Conditions
Area 5-Northwest Scenic Road to Cowiche Creek
Assessed Value $199,986,650
Jobs 177
Population 809
Median HH Income $104,962
Median Home Value $386,765
Median Age 49.3
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online,Yakima County Assessor
The Northwest area includes significant vacant and underutilized land. As shown below in Exhibit
31, it is estimated that the area could potentially add 888 new housing units. All remaining buildable
land is planned for residential development.
Exhibit 31: Northwest Development Potential
Subarea 5: Northwest
Housing Units
Potential New Dwelling Units 888
Jobs
Potential New Service Jobs -
Potential New Industrial/Other Jobs -
Potential Total Jobs -
Source: Yakima Growth Study, GIS analysis by 3J Consulting and FCS GROUP
4> FCS GROUP page 22 189
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 5 Infrastructure Needs
• Water: Most of the Northwest area is served by the Nob Hill Water District apart from a small
western portion which is served by the City of Yakima. As with other annexation areas, water
mains are present along arterials in the area but would have to be developed further to meet the
demands of growth.
• Sewer: Most of the Northwest area is likely on septic systems with the western portion of the
potential annexation area on City of Yakima sewer service. Significant transmission
infrastructure will be needed to serve this area which is likely to be complicated by the
topography of the area.
• Roads and Streets: Due to the topography of the Northwest area arterial roadways are sparce
and mostly nonlinear. Development of additional roadway capacity will be necessary to meet the
demands of development with an added capital cost attributed to the need for extraordinary
geotechnical work and the need for retaining walls for land stabilization in areas with steep
topography.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICEABILITY
As part of this study, FCS GROUP reviewed public facility master plans, and met with City of
Yakima community development, finance and public works staff and received input from the Nob
Hill Water District. This input was imperative for understanding the relative serviceability of each
subarea with respect to the general cost of providing adequate water, sewer and transportation
capacity to accommodate the current and future development within each subarea.
With an understanding of the relative public facility capital and infrastructure costs for each area and
the potential community benefits (measured by existing and potential assessed valuation, housing and
employment) a relative scoring system was used to rank each subarea.
As shown in Exhibit 32,the relative serviceability in rank order is as follows:
• Area lA—Terrace Heights Subarea (Highest overall serviceability score)
• Area lB—Rest of Terrace Heights Subarea (Second highest overall serviceability score)
• Area 4—West (tied for second highest serviceability score)
• Area 2—South Airport &Area 3—Southwest (tied for third Highest serviceability score)
• Area 5—Northwest (Lowest overall serviceability score)
•:> FCS GROUP page 23 190
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 32: Infrastructure and Public Facility Serviceability Comparison
Relative Infrastructure Serviceability& Growth Potential
Area 1A Area 1B Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5
Terrace Rest of
Heights Terrace
Facility Type Subarea Heights South
Overall Public Facility Serviceability46, J i
Potential AV Added with Annexation mi) 411) 11,
Potential Pop&Housing Added
Future Job Opportunities
Total Relative Score(Avg.)
Avg. Ranking 1.2 1.4 2.4 2.6 1.6 2.8
LEGEND
Highest Relative Change or Impact to City
Moderate Change or Impact to City
Lowest Relative Change or Impact to City
•4•> FCS GROUP page 24 191
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
IV. FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section evaluates the potential annual or ongoing fiscal impact that annexation areas could have
on the City of Yakima General Fund.
METHODOLOGY
To evaluate annual fiscal costs and benefits of serving local residents and daytime
employment/visitation within the City, FCS GROUP analyzed City of Yakima budget history (FY
2014-2024). The focus of this analysis is on General Government operating revenues and
expenditures, which tend to increase or decrease with changes in population and employment within
the City of Yakima.
The approach used to conduct this analysis entailed the following steps:
1. Compile annual revenue and expense data from prior City of Yakima audited financial
statements and current budget year for selected line items contained in the General
Government Fund for period between 2014 and 2024 (see Exhibit 33 for a list of the budget
line items included in this analysis).
2. Prepare 3-year moving average to smooth out anomalies in the City's budget history. This
approach tends to "dampen" extraordinary impacts created by recessions and special events,
such as the Global Covid-19 Pandemic.
3. Compile historic trends and current estimates of resident population and employment (at
place of work jobs) within the City for the period extending from 2014 to 2023, using
estimates from the U.S. Census Revenue Line Items Expense Line Items
Bureau and the Washington 311 Property Tax 100 Salaries&Wages
313 Retail Sales and Use Tax zoo Personnel Benefits
Office of Employment Security.
313 Criminal Justice Tax 300 Supplies
4. Calculate the 3-year moving 314 Water Utility Tax 400 Other Services and Charges
average of historic annual 314 Wastewater Utility Tax
General Fund expenses and 314 Refuse Utility Tax
revenues for the City; focusing 314 Stormwater Utility Tax
on the line items that most 316 Business Licenses
316 Electric Utility Tax
affected by changes in population 316 Private Water Frchs/Util Tax
or jobs. 316 Gas Franchise/Utility Tax
5. Identify 3-year moving average 316 Private Garbage Utility Tax
depicting City General Fund 316 Cable TV Utility Tax
316 Cable TV Franchise Fees
expense and revenue estimates
316 Cellular Utility Tax
per job (at place of work
316 Telephone Utility Tax
employment) within the City. 317 BEET
6. Convert nominal dollars for all 317 Leasehold Excise Tax
budget years to real 2024 dollar 317 Gambling Tax
317 Assessments
amounts using annual U.S.
317 Transportation Benefit District TBD
Consumer Price Index data from Exhibit 30: General Fund Categories Included in Fiscal Impact
Assessment
'*:) FCS GROUP page 25 192
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
7. Translate General Fund revenue and expense impacts per capita and per job into expected
impacts per net developed acre of residential land (by housing type) and per acre of
developed employment land (for commercial and industrial buildings).
In addition to measuring the relative impact that new residents or workers would likely place on the
City's General Fund,this annexation analysis also considers the relative impact annexation areas
would likely have on property tax revenues and sales and use taxes, as described below.
Fiscal Impact Drivers
To quantify the relative fiscal impact of each annexation study area it is necessary to understand the
relationship between the main drivers of fiscal spending: population, housing and employment and
their impacts on annual General Government revenues and expenditures. For analysis purposes, FCS
relied upon data provided by the Washington Office of Financial Management(OFM) for historical
population estimates for the City of Yakima. Historic employment estimates for the City were
obtained using U.S. Census, On-the-Map data. Current population and employment estimates and 3-
year projections were obtained using ESRI Business Analyst data (Exhibit 31).
Exhibit 33: Population and Employment Estimates and Forecasts
Population and Employment Trends, City of Yakima
Resident Population Employment(by Place of Work)
Year Estimate Year Estimate
2010 91,196 2010 40,882
2011 91,892 2011 40,147
2012 92,317 2012 40,873
2013 93,093 2013 42,646
2014 93,706 2014 44,046
2015 93,927 2015 45,259
2016 94,217 2016 46,008
2017 95,020 2017 47,288
2018 95,455 2018 49,111
2019 95,771 2019 47,341
2020 96,968 2020 45,442
2021 97,810 2021 47,282
2022 98,200 Source: Census On the Map
2023 98,650
Source: Washington OFM Year Emp. Forecast
2022 Est. 47,776
Year Pop. Forecast 2023 Est. 48,276
2024 Est. 99,257 2024 Est. 48,790
2025 Proj. 99,868 2025 Proj. 49,308
2026 Proj. 100,483 2026 Proj. 49,832
2027 Proj. 101,102 2027 Proj. 50,362
Notes: Forecast values assume historic CAGR.
CAGR= compound annual growth rate.
Historic 14-year CAGR: Pop. Historic 12-year CAGR: Employment
0.62% populuation 1.06% employment _
Sources: Washington Office of Financial Management, U.S. Census, ESRI(projections).
The population and employment estimates shown above along with 3-year moving averages
depicting General Government spending and revenues have been utilized to quantify key fiscal
impact metrics that are used in this study.
+.> FCS GROUP page 26 193
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Kay fiscal impact measures used in this analysis include:
• Annual General Government expenditures and revenues per capita
• Annual General Government expenditures and revenues per job (average)
• Annual General Government expenditures and revenues per retail job
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACTS
The analysis of the average annual fiscal impact on the City of Yakima General Government fund is
summarized below in Exhibit 34. After converting the 3-year moving average amounts from
nominal dollars into constant 2024 dollars, it is estimated that each net new resident in the City
generates approximately $2,424 in revenues and $1,859 in annual expenses, with a net impact of
$575 per person.
The employment impact analysis indicates that there is higher net fiscal benefit associated with jobs
in the City, with an overall net fiscal benefit of$890 per year to the General Fund. Commercial retail
jobs generate an even higher overall net fiscal benefit to the General Fund of approximately $1,532
per job.
Exhibit 34: Per Capita and Per Job General Fund Impacts
Avg. Annual General Fund Impact Per Pop. &Per Job (2024$)
Average Annual Impact FY 2014-2023
GF Revenue GF Expense Net GF Impact
Gen. Fund Impact Per Pop. $ 2,434 $ (1,859) $ 575
Gen. Fund Impact Per Avg.Job $ 5,117 $ (4,227) $ 890
Gen. Fund Impact Per Retail Job $ 5,759 $ (4,227) $ 1,532
As new areas are annexed into the City (typically through property-owner petitions)there are
generally two types of ongoing annual fiscal impacts on the General Fund:
1. Short-term impact: reflects the addition of assessed value from current development to the
calculation of local mil rates and/or changes in property tax revenue. Depending upon the
number of people and businesses in the annexation area, there may also be some change in
the City/County allocation of miscellaneous tax revenues from sales and use tax collections,
state shared taxes (i.e., fuel tax, liquor tax, etc.), utility franchise tax revenue, etc.
2. Long-term impact: if an annexation area develops new housing or attracts new businesses
there will be an additional fiscal impact that will increase General Government revenues and
expenditures as local services (such City administration, planning,public facility operations,
police service, etc.) are extended into that area.
It should be noted that this fiscal impact section focuses only on ongoing annual General
Government revenues and expenditures and does not account for one-time capital facility
investments that are unique to each area. For a discussion on infrastructure
serviceability and relative capital costs please refer to the previous chapter.
���� FCS GROUP page 27 194
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Short-Term Fiscal Impacts
The factors that primarily drive short-term fiscal impacts for each annexation study area include
existing population, existing housing (dwelling units), retail and non-retail jobs, and existing taxable
assessed value (Exhibit 35).
Exhibit 35: Fiscal Impact by Focus Area
Daytime Current
Pop- Dwelling Total Retail Resident Daytime Taxable AV
Subarea ulation Units Jobs Jobs Pop. Emp. ($M)
1 Terrace Heights 8,735 3,777 2,578 377 4,317 2,578 $ 1,082.2
2 South Airport 945 356 162 82 451 162 $ 97.0
3 Bachelor Creek 1,429 572 273 99 812 273 $ 151.0
4 West Valley 1,352 499 884 47 777 884 $ 280.4
5 Northwest 809 321 82 34 487 82 $ 170.0
Citywide 98,579 37,192 44,034 5,328 $ 11,665.1
Notes:
1.Derived from ESRI Business Analyst,and Washingon Dept. of Revenue data.
2.Analysis reflects current average retail sales per job in City.
3.Analysis reflects current Sales and Use Tax for City(0.018%)
Compiled by FCS GROUP.
The precise impact of annexations on property tax revenue is difficult to predict given Washington
State constitutional limits on the amount of General Fund revenue local jurisdictions can assess (1%
annual limitation on existing AV plus the value of new construction). Hence,the initial result of
annexations may result in a slight increase in General Fund Revenue (of 1%) with a concomitant
downward pressure on local mil rates for most taxable properties within the City boundary.
The relative fiscal impact from the potential increase in taxable values for each annexation area is
shown in Exhibit 36. In the analysis shown, for each $100 million in taxable AV,there is a potential
equivalent impact of either a $190,000 increase in General Fund property tax revenues or a slight
decrease in the citywide property tax mil rate from approximately 1.85527 to 1.8395 per $1,000 AV.
+> FCS GROUP page 28 195
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 36: Property Tax Impact by Focus Area
Annual City
Land RMV Imp.RMV Total RMV Est.Taxable Prop.Tax
Subarea ($M)1 ($M)1 ($M)1 AV($M)2 Impact 3
1 Terrace Heights $ 247.0 $ 1,026.2 $ 1,273.2 $ 1,082.2 $ 2,010,000
Subarea 1A $ 77.1 $ 217.1 $ 294.2 $ 250.0 $ 460,000
2 South Airport $ 31.5 $ 82.6 $ 114.1 $ 97.0 $ 180,000
3 Bachelor Creek $ 37.9 $ 139.8 $ 177.7 $ 151.0 $ 280,000
4 West Valley $ 61.5 $ 268.4 $ 329.9 $ 280.4 $ 520,000
5 Northwest $ 43.0 $ 157.0 $ 200.0 $ 170.0 $ 320,000
Notes:
1.Derived from Yakima County Assessor Records,Dec.2023.
2.Adjusted downward by 15%to account for tax exempt uses.
3.Assumes 2024 mil rate of: 1.855272 per$1,000AV.
RMV=real market value per Yakima County Assessor,2024.
Within the study areas there is already an existing amount of commercial retail development that
would generate local sales and use tax revenues after the first year of annexation. Terrace Heights
has the most significant level of current retail sales ($13.4 million) which if taxed at current City
rates (0.18%) would generate approximately $242,000 annually for the City (Exhibit 37).
Exhibit 37: Sales Tax Impact by Focus Area
Existing Retail Current Annual Annual City Sales
Subarea Jobs 1 Retail Sales &Use Tax Impact 2
1 Terrace Heights 377 $ 13,440,000 $ 242,000
2 South Airport 82 $ 2,940,000 $ 53,000
3 Bachelor Creek 99 $ 3,560,000 $ 64,000
4 West Valley 47 $ 1,670,000 $ 30,000
5 Northwest 34 $ 1,220,000 $ 22,000
Notes:
1.Derived from ESRI Business Analyst,and Washingon Dept.of Revenue data.
2.Analysis reflects current average retail sales per job in City.
3.Analysis reflects current Sales and Use Tax for City(0.018%)
The estimated annual fiscal impacts to the City of Yakima in the short-term are summarized in
Exhibit 38. This analysis is provided for comparative purposes only and assumes that the entirety of
each study area is annexed in the City. Based on current levels of development,the findings indicate
that the annual fiscal impact on the General Fund ranges from $864 per net acre of developed land in
Area 4-West Valley to a high of$3,136 per acre in Area 2-South Airport.
The findings also indicate that the relative fiscal impact per gross acre ranges from $377 in Area 5:
Northwest to $907 in Area 1-Terrace Heights.
4*:) FCS GROUP page 29 196
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Exhibit 38: Short-term Fiscal Impact of Current Development
Potential Annual Net Gen. Fund Impact
Based on Total Net
Based on Current Fiscal Impact
Subarea Current Pop I Jobs I (weighted)2
1 Terrace Heights $ 5,023,449 $2,537,039 $ 4,090,000
Subarea 1A $ 460,000
2 South Airport $ 543,464 $ 196,861 $ 450,000
3 Bachelor Creek $ 821,810 $ 306,590 $ 690,000
4 West Valley $ 777,528 $ 817,135 $ 800,000
5 Northwest $ 465,251 $ 94,827 $ 410,000
Notes:
1.Derived from prior tables.
2.Analysis reflects weighted average based on total daytime pop and jobs&Assessed Value.
3.Analysis reflects Buildable Land Inventory findings,Dec.2023.
Compiled by FCS GROUP.
Long-Term Fiscal Impacts
The long-term fiscal impact analysis provides a relative comparison based on the assumption that the
current vacant and part-vacant buildable land (with no environmental constraints) is developed by the
end of the study time frame. The baseline scenario assumes an average housing and job density levels
discussed previously in this report.
The findings shown in Exhibit 39 indicate that the long-term potential net new fiscal impact per acre
of buildable land ranges from a high of$4,321 per buildable acre in Terrace Heights Subarea lA to a
low of$1,629/acre in Area 4 —West Valley.
Exhibit 39: Long Term Fiscal Impact of Future Development
Fiscal Impact Based on Future Net New Development
Potential Annual Net Gen.Fund Impact(in Future)
Annual Fiscal
Based on Based on Total Net Impact per
Future Net Future Jobs Fiscal Impact Buildable Buildable
Subarea New Pop 1 1 (weighted)2 Acres 3 Acre
1 Terrace Heights S 1,560,346 $2,112,509 $ 1.700.000 1,293 $ 1,315
Subarea 1A S 30.389 S 1.841.824 S 1,300.000 301 $ 4,321
2 South Airport $ 103.909 $ 368,886 $ 230.000 139 $ 1,660
3 Bachelor Creek $ 415,448 S - $ 420,000 258 $ 1,628
4 West Valley $ 1,365,993 $ 658,056 $ 1,370,000 896 $ 1,529
5 Northwest $ 510.454 S - $ 510.454 317 $ 1,610
Notes
1.Derived from prior tables.impacts reflect buildout of unconstrained vacant land in tax lots over 5 acres.
2.Analysis reflects weighted average based on total daytime pop and jobs in each area.
3.Analysis reflects Buildable Land Inventory findings.May 2024.
Compiled by FCS GROUP.
+.> FCS GROUP page 30 197
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Overall Fiscal Impacts
The overall fiscal impact analysis combines that short-term impacts with the long-term impacts to
provide a comparison of the potential fiscal impact each area could have on the City in Year 20 or
after each area achieves full development of the buildable acres shown in the prior table.
The findings indicate that the relative fiscal impact per buildable acre ranges from a low of$1,191 in
Area 4—West Valley to a high of$5,850 in Subarea lA—Terrace Heights (Table 40).
Exhibit 40: Fiscal Impact Based on Current and Future Development by Focus Area
Potential Annual Net Gen.Fund Impact(in Future)
Annual Fiscal
Current Net Future Net Total Developed& Impact per
Fiscal Impact Fiscal Potential Net Gross Buildable Buildable
2 Impact Fiscal Impact Acres 3 Acres 3 Acre
1 Terrace Heights $ 4,090,000 $1,700,000 $ 5,790,000 4,510 3,315 $ 1,747
Subarea 1A $ 460,000 $1,300,000 $ 1,760,000 1,448 301 $ 5,850
2 South Airport $ 450,000 $ 230,000 $ 680,000 553 282 $ 2,411
3 Bachelor Creek $ 690,000 $ 420,000 $ 1,110,000 1,084 643 $ 1,726
4 West Valley $ 800,000 $1,370,000 $ 2,170,000 2,056 1,823 $ 1,191
5 Northwest $ 410,000 $ 510,454 $ 920,454 1,088 696 $ 1,322
Notes:
1.Derived from prior tables,impacts reflect buildout of unconstrained vacant land in tax lots over 5 acres.
2.Analysis reflects weighted average based on total daytime pop and jobs in each area.
3.Analysis reflects Buildable Land Inventory findings,Dec.2023.
Compiled by FCS GROUP.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how housing types can influence fiscal impacts. In
general, as housing density increases, fiscal impacts are more concentrated and the costs of providing
City services such as roadway maintenance can be minimized.
This sensitivity analysis assumes that the City establishes a long-term policy goal aimed at meeting
or exceeding the "average annual net fiscal impact of$2,400 per buildable acre" for each study
area. The housing density of future development would need to increase in most areas to achieve that
target. As shown below,the minimum required density of future housing development to achieve the
$2,400 target within each area would need to range from a low of 4 dwellings per acre in Area 2—
South Airport to a high of 11.6 dwellings per acre in Area 1—Terrace Heights (Exhibit 41).
Exhibit 41: Minimum Housing Density on New Development
to Achieve $2,400 Annual Net Fiscal Impact per Buildable Area
DUs per
Subarea Acre
1 Terrace Heights 11.6
2 South Airport 4.0
3 Bachelor Creek 8.3
4 West Valley 10.5
5 Northwest 9.9
4> FCS GROUP page 31 198
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
SUMMARY & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The Yakima Annexation Growth Study provides a relative comparison of the costs and benefits of
serving potential areas outside the current City limits. This analysis considers community growth
opportunities for housing and employment over the long-term. The study included an assessment of
existing development conditions and future buildable lands for each study area. A baseline growth
forecast for housing and employment in each area is provided to ascertain the relative fiscal impacts
on General Government revenues and expenditures.
These findings also consider the near-term infrastructure serviceability and relative capital costs for
each area. Subarea 1A—Terrace Heights and Area 4—West Valley received high highest
infrastructure and public facility serviceability rankings.
The findings indicate that there is likely an overall positive fiscal impact on the City's General
Fund for each annexation area. Based on current development conditions, land use regulations
and buildable lands,the most positive annual General Fund fiscal impacts per acre are
expected to be generated within Subarea 1A—Terrace Heights and Area 2—South Airport.
However, local policies that encourage a mix of housing types (such as townhomes and apartments)
can measurably enhance the overall fiscal benefit that can be achieved in other annexation areas.
The methodology for this study may be applied to specific annexation requests in the future. As new
opportunities are advanced it is recommended that the City of Yakima evaluate the expected fiscal
impacts on the General Fund and also consider specific capital investment requirements and sources
of capital funding. Any potential funding gaps will then need to be addressed through new funding
techniques or development agreements to achieve positive fiscal sustainability.
4> FCS GROUP page 32 1gg
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
APPENDIX A: BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY
METHODOLOGY
YAKIMA BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
An estimate of buildable land inventory (BLI) within Yakima's Growth Annexation Areas has been
created to determine the amount of land available for housing and employment. The BLI analysis
uses the most current Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by the City and County
of Yakima.
BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
The objective of the BLI is to determine the amount of developable land available for future
residential housing and economic development within the UGB. The steps taken to perform this
analysis are as follows:
1. Calculate gross acres by zoning designation, including classifications for fully vacant and
partially-vacant & underutilized parcels. The parcel data was provided by the City of Yakima.
Further City staff reviewed vacancy assumptions to provide a level of quality assurance.
2. Calculate gross buildable acres by zoning designation by subtracting land that is constrained
from future development, such as existing public right-of-way, parks and open space, steep
slopes, and floodplains.
3. Calculate net buildable acres by zone designation, by subtracting future public facilities such
as roads, schools and parks from gross buildable acres.
The detailed steps used to create the land inventory are described below.
Residential and Economic Land Base
The residential land base reflects current Yakima zoning designations. Properties that are within the
residential land base include the following base zone classifications:
Residential Zoning Categories
• SR Suburban Residential
• R-1 Single Family
• R-2 Two Family
• R-3 Multi-Family
• B-1 Professional Business District
• B-2 Professional Business District
• GC General Commercial District
The economic land base reflects current Yakima zoning categories. Properties that are within the
economic land base include the following base zone classifications:
Economic Zoning Categories
• B-1 Professional Business District
• B-2 Professional Business District
•4•> FCS GROUP page 33 200
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
• GC General Commercial District
• SCC Small Convenience Center District
• M-1 Light Industrial District
The City has multiple overlay districts. Some of the land is within these overlays and can affect
future development.
Overlay Districts
• ASO Airport Safety Overlay with multiple zones
• FO Floodplain Overlay
• GO Greenway Overlay
These classifications have been kept consistent throughout the analysis.
Yakima Buildable Land Categories
Vacant land: Properties with no structures or have buildings with little value. For purpose of the
BLI, tax lots with improvement value less than $10,000 with a lot size of at least 3,000 sq.ft. are
considered vacant. In addition, lots with the land use code 81 (Agricultural Not Current Use), 83
(Current use Agricultural), 91 (Undeveloped Land) and 99 (Other Undeveloped Land) are
assumed to be vacant. These lands were also subjected to review using satellite imagery via
Google Earth; and if the land is in a committed use such as a parking lot, an assessment has been
made to determine if it is to be classified as vacant, part vacant or developed.
Partially vacant land: Properties that are occupied by a use (e.g., a home or building structure with
value over $10,000) but have enough land to be subdivided without the need for rezoning. This
determination is made using tax assessor records and satellite imagery. For Single Family lots, it
is assumed that '/4 acre (10,890 sq. ft.) is retained by each existing home, and the remainder is
included in the part vacant land inventory. For other residential uses aerial imagery was used to
determine the size of the unused portion. For commercial or industrial lots with structures that
are in value 40%below their land value, it is assumed that half the lot is developed and the other
half is vacant. Or commercial or industrial lots of at least one acre in size and one half-acre of
unimproved land.
Redevelopment Potential: Occupied properties with a higher land value than the on-site structure.
Properties must be at least 20,000 sq.ft. to be considered of interest for redevelopment.
Developed: Properties unlikely to yield additional growth.
Other: Properties which are regarded as unlikely to be developed because they are restricted by
existing uses such as: Public lands, public parks, schools, ballfields, roads and public right-of-
way (ROW); common areas held by Homeowners Associations, cemeteries, power substations,
and constrained by more than 85% of its area.
These tax lot classifications were validated using satellite imagery, street view, building permit data,
and assessor records. Preliminary results were refined by City staff.
Environmental Constraints
The BLI methodology for identifying and removing development constraints is consistent for
residential and employment land. "Buildable Land" includes residential and economic designated
land within the 5 annexation areas, including vacant, part vacant and land that is likely to be
redeveloped; and suitable, available and necessary for residential and economic uses. Public-owned
land is generally not considered to be available for new growth unless the underlying zoning permits
•4•> FCS GROUP page 34 201
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
it. It should be noted that "available" in this context does not mean that the land is presently on the
market. It is assumed in this analysis that such land is expected to come on the market within the 20-
year timeframe of this study. Land is considered to be "suitable for new development" unless it is:
• Is severely constrained by natural hazards
• Is within a floodway
• Is within a shoreline environment
• Is affected by a wetland
• Is affected by geological hazards
• Has slopes over 40 percent
• Cannot be provided or served with public facilities
Some lands can still be developed even if within a natural hazard. For the purpose of this study these
lands are constrained by 50%of the following hazard:
• Land within the 100-year floodplains. This includes lands in the floodplain overlay.
• Slopes between 15 and 40%.
The following map (Figure A-1) depicts the results of the BLI which is used for this study.
4****) FCS GROUP page 35 202
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Figure A-1: Yakima Buildable Land Inventory
1 l ���., u�F /F
111
6{i 1, i.. ' '
o_ p 1 ,, .,-- „.----„.., A „..-
re; 'i W"
•
w
`
r
n
6 �c' , 1�
--t J is .-
{ Al ....
wyvi >ax;
hE.
A„s AZ
. '' . ram' ✓ 1pa70
-- ,.,', , , . --,.... R., 'a ar - -,,
.. ' ' '..=-‘ ',. ril
,. , _ , a /
�. `�.+, •
�- �� � i � +� ` ram::
/// Y
*4*> FCS GROUP page 36 203
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
APPENDIX B : ESRI MARKET DATA
•
$)i) e sri£ Market Profile
Yakima City,WA Prepared by Esri
Yakima City,WA(5380010)
Geography: Place
Yakima city,...
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 91,788
2020 Total Population 96,968
2020 Group Quarters 2,078
2023 Total Population 98,579
2023 Group Quarters 1,907
2028 Total Population 99,551
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.20%
2023 Total Daytime Population 108,380
Workers 53,177
Residents 55,203
Household Summary
2010 Households 33,297
2010 Average Household Size 2.68
2020 Total Households 35,379
2020 Average Household Size 2.68
2023 Households 36,315
2023 Average Household Size 2.66
2028 Households 37,001
2028 Average Household Size 2.64
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.37%
2010 Families 21,619
2010 Average Family Size 3.30
2023 Families 23,377
2023 Average Family Size 3.28
2028 Families 23,891
2028 Average Family Size 3.23
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.44%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 33,380
Owner Occupied Housing Units 52.8%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 40.4%
Vacant Housing Units 6.8%
2010 Housing Units 35,056
Owner Occupied Housing Units 51.6%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 43.4%
Vacant Housing Units 5.0%
2020 Housing Units 37,192
Owner Occupied Housing Units 50.5%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 44.6%
Vacant Housing Units 4.9%
2023 Housing Units 38,114
Owner Occupied Housing Units 54.4%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 40.9%
Vacant Housing Units 4.7%
2028 Housing Units 38,715
Owner Occupied Housing Units 55.9%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 39.7%
Vacant Housing Units 4.4%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in fanilies include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
���> FCS GROUP page 37 204
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
•
pi� esr�� Market Profile
�: Terrace Heights Prepared by Esri
Area: 8.3 square miles
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 6,850
2020 Total Population 8,821
2020 Group Quarters 172
2023 Total Population 8,735
2023 Group Quarters 175
2028 Total Population 8,753
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.04%
2023 Total Daytime Population 6,895
Workers 2,578
Residents 4,317
Household Summary
2010 Households 2,777
2010 Average Household Size 2.46
2020 Total Households 3,603
2020 Average Household Size 2.40
2023 Households 3,647
2023 Average Household Size 2.35
2028 Households 3,689
2028 Average Household Size 2.33
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.23%
2010 Families 2,016
2010 Average Family Size 2.84
2023 Families 2,627
2023 Average Family Size 2.72
2028 Families 2,663
2028 Average Family Size 2.68
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.27%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 2,597
Owner Occupied Housing Units 78.1%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 18.9%
Vacant Housing Units 3.0%
2010 Housing Units 2,884
Owner Occupied Housing Units 75.7%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 20.5%
Vacant Housing Units 3.7%
2020 Housing Units 3,738
Owner Occupied Housing Units 64.0%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 32.3%
Vacant Housing Units 3.7%
2023 Housing Units 3,777
Owner Occupied Housing Units 71.1%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 25.5%
Vacant Housing Units 3.4%
2028 Housing Units 3,807
Owner Occupied Housing Units 72.8%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 24.1%
Vacant Housing Units 3.1%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
+> FCS GROUP page 38 205
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
•
pi� esr�� Market Profile
�: South Airport to Ahtanum Road Prepared by Esri
Area: 1.1 square miles
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 799
2020 Total Population 928
2020 Group Quarters 5
2023 Total Population 945
2023 Group Quarters 3
2028 Total Population 961
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.34%
2023 Total Daytime Population 613
Workers 162
Residents 451
Household Summary
2010 Households 302
2010 Average Household Size 2.64
2020 Total Households 344
2020 Average Household Size 2.68
2023 Households 350
2023 Average Household Size 2.69
2028 Households 360
2028 Average Household Size 2.66
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.57%
2010 Families 233
2010 Average Family Size 2.92
2023 Families 268
2023 Average Family Size 2.99
2028 Families 276
2028 Average Family Size 2.95
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.59%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 267
Owner Occupied Housing Units 82.8%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 12.7%
Vacant Housing Units 4.5%
2010 Housing Units 314
Owner Occupied Housing Units 80.6%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 15.6%
Vacant Housing Units 3.8%
2020 Housing Units 350
Owner Occupied Housing Units 83.7%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 14.6%
Vacant Housing Units 2.0%
2023 Housing Units 356
Owner Occupied Housing Units 81.5%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 16.9%
Vacant Housing Units 1.7%
2028 Housing Units 363
Owner Occupied Housing Units 83.5%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 15.7%
Vacant Housing Units 0.8%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
+> FCS GROUP page 39 206
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
•
pi� esr�� Market Profile
�: Bachelor Creek, Spring Creek to Wiley City Prepared by Esri
Area: 1.83 square miles
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 1,162
2020 Total Population 1,388
2020 Group Quarters 13
2023 Total Population 1,429
2023 Group Quarters 7
2028 Total Population 1,471
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.58%
2023 Total Daytime Population 1,085
Workers 273
Residents 812
Household Summary
2010 Households 450
2010 Average Household Size 2.57
2020 Total Households 526
2020 Average Household Size 2.61
2023 Households 541
2023 Average Household Size 2.63
2028 Households 563
2028 Average Household Size 2.60
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.80%
2010 Families 345
2010 Average Family Size 2.88
2023 Families 412
2023 Average Family Size 2.96
2028 Families 429
2028 Average Family Size 2.92
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.81%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 393
Owner Occupied Housing Units 80.4%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 17.0%
Vacant Housing Units 2.5%
2010 Housing Units 467
Owner Occupied Housing Units 79.9%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 16.5%
Vacant Housing Units 3.6%
2020 Housing Units 553
Owner Occupied Housing Units 79.4%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 15.7%
Vacant Housing Units 5.2%
2023 Housing Units 572
Owner Occupied Housing Units 70.3%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 24.3%
Vacant Housing Units 5.4%
2028 Housing Units 590
Owner Occupied Housing Units 72.5%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 22.9%
Vacant Housing Units 4.6%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
+> FCS GROUP page 40 207
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
•
:
�1 esri Market Profile
West Valley to Dazet and Estes Roads Prepared by Esri
Area: 3.43 square miles
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 1,131
2020 Total Population 1,389
2020 Group Quarters 10
2023 Total Population 1,352
2023 Group Quarters 5
2028 Total Population 1,353
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.01%
2023 Total Daytime Population 1,661
Workers 884
Residents 777
Household Summary
2010 Households 386
2010 Average Household Size 2.92
2020 Total Households 472
2020 Average Household Size 2.92
2023 Households 477
2023 Average Household Size 2.82
2028 Households 482
2028 Average Household Size 2.80
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.21%
2010 Families 301
2010 Average Family Size 3.29
2023 Families 370
2023 Average Family Size 3.18
2028 Families 375
2028 Average Family Size 3.14
2023-2028 Annual Rate 0.27%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 215
Owner Occupied Housing Units 83.3%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 10.7%
Vacant Housing Units 6.0%
2010 Housing Units 411
Owner Occupied Housing Units 76.9%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 17.0%
Vacant Housing Units 6.1%
2020 Housing Units 496
Owner Occupied Housing Units 77.6%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 17.5%
Vacant Housing Units 3.0%
2023 Housing Units 499
Owner Occupied Housing Units 75.2%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 20.4%
Vacant Housing Units 4.4%
2028 Housing Units 502
Owner Occupied Housing Units 77.1%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 18.9%
Vacant Housing Units 4.0%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
4> FCS GROUP page 41 208
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
•
pi� esr�� Market Profile
�: Northwest Scenic Road to Cowiche Creek Prepared by Esri
Area: 1.83 square miles
Population Summary
2010 Total Population 717
2020 Total Population 802
2020 Group Quarters 0
2023 Total Population 809
2023 Group Quarters 0
2028 Total Population 937
2023-2028 Annual Rate 2.98%
2023 Total Daytime Population 569
Workers 82
Residents 487
Household Summary
2010 Households 289
2010 Average Household Size 2.48
2020 Total Households 310
2020 Average Household Size 2.59
2023 Households 309
2023 Average Household Size 2.62
2028 Households 365
2028 Average Household Size 2.57
2023-2028 Annual Rate 3.39%
2010 Families 216
2010 Average Family Size 2.84
2023 Families 229
2023 Average Family Size 3.01
2028 Families 271
2028 Average Family Size 2.94
2023-2028 Annual Rate 3.43%
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units 240
Owner Occupied Housing Units 85.0%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 13.8%
Vacant Housing Units 1.2%
2010 Housing Units 301
Owner Occupied Housing Units 79.1%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 16.9%
Vacant Housing Units 4.0%
2020 Housing Units 321
Owner Occupied Housing Units 79.4%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 17.1%
Vacant Housing Units 4.7%
2023 Housing Units 321
Owner Occupied Housing Units 88.5%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 7.8%
Vacant Housing Units 3.7%
2028 Housing Units 375
Owner Occupied Housing Units 76.8%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 20.5%
Vacant Housing Units 2.7%
Data Note:Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population
divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage,or
adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population.
geography.
+> FCS GROUP page 42 209
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
Area 2-South Area 3-Bachelor Area 4-West Area 5-Northwest
Area 1-Terrace
Businesses by NAICS CODE City Limits Airport to Creek,Spring Valley to Dazet Scenic Road to
Heights Ahtanum Road Creek to Wiley City and Estes Roads Cowiche Creek
Firms Employees Firms Employees Firms Employees Firms Employees Firms Employees Firms Employees
Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing&Hunting 18 934 2 12 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 2
Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Utilities 4 87 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 169 1,159 17 250 1 4 4 10 4 14 1 4
Manufacturing 127 3,139 6 162 1 85 1 5 1 3 1 5
Wholesale Trade 152 2,856 10 97 1 5 1 64 3 87 0 1
Retail Trade 473 6,729 22 755 1 10 1 29 4 69 3 109
Transportation&Warehousing 77 1,055 4 203 1 11 0 1 1 1 0 1
Information 82 766 7 240 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Finance&Insurance 193 1,226 9 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
Real Estate,Rental&Leasing 168 823 9 28 1 3 0 0 2 3 1 2
Professional,Scientific&Tech Services 289 2,152 10 158 1 7 1 2 3 8 2 8
Management of Companies&Enterprises 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Administrative,Support&Waste Management Services 97 891 7 62 0 2 1 2 2 5 1 2
Educational Services 91 3,571 5 126 0 12 1 94 4 211 0 0
Health Care&Social Assistance 425 9,761 7 116 0 4 0 1 1 8 1 6
Arts,Entertainment&Recreation 56 1,470 5 27 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 0
Accommodation&Food Services 275 4,057 8 87 0 1 1 37 3 28 2 17
Other Services(except Public Administration) 440 2,715 33 153 1 2 2 5 5 14 3 14
Public Administration 137 3,248 6 126 0 4 1 17 1 38 0 0
Unclassified Establishments 138 289 8 6 0 0 1 5 1 2 1 0
Total 3,412 46,931 173 2,642 9 151 16 282 38 497 18 177
•4�> FCS GROUP page 43 210
July 2024
City of Yakima FCS GROUP
Growth Plan and Annexation Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4> FCS GROUP page 44 211
i,...,...ov YA \
0
r , s
0,V .:, ,
011I,1L'li RPOR Arr0•• �
Office of the City Attorney
City of Yakima
MEMORANDUM
July 17, 2024
TO: Mayor Patricia Byers
Yakima City Councilmembers
Dave Zabel!, Interim City Manager
FROM: Sara Watkins, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Election Method for Annexation
As discussed at a previous council meeting, one of the methods available to the City to annex
property is the election method. There are two election method options: starting the election
method by council resolution; or starting the election method by petition.
1. Election Method Initiated by Resolution
One option under the election method of annexation is to start the process by a resolution. The
City Council would determine, by resolution, that it is in the best interests of the city to annex
unincorporated lands contiguous to the city. The resolution would contain the information
necessary for the election, including, but not limited to, the land proposed to be annexed, the
number of voters in that area, and a request to call for those voters to vote on the question of
annexation. The City pays for the election. RCW 35.13.015. The resolution would be filed with
the county and provided to the boundary review board. After review, the matter would then be
placed on the ballot and the voters in the proposed area to be annexed would decide if they
want to be annexed into the city.
2. Election Method Initiated by Petition
An alternative to the city council adopting a resolution is for the people in an area to propose an
annexation by petition. If at least 20% of the qualified voters in an area contiguous to the city
sign a petition seeking annexation of the area, the city council is required to adopt a resolution
either approving or rejecting the proposed annexation. If the city council approves the petition,
200 South Third Street,2nd Fl. I Yakima,WA 98901
P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160
212
Mayor Patricia Byers
City of Yakima Councilmembers
July 17, 2024
Page 2
the proposal for annexation is submitted to the voters of the area to be annexed. The City pays
for the election. RCW 35.13.020.
Once the City Council has approved the petition, the petition must be filed with the board of
county commissioners and notice must be provided to the boundary review board. RCW
35.13.030. The county commissioners will then schedule and hold a public hearing on the
petition. If the petition complies with law and has been approved by the boundary review board,
the county commissioners grant the petition. RCW 35.13.040. The auditor then certifies the
petition as being sufficient and an election date is chosen. RCW 35.13.060. The voters in the
proposed area to be annexed would decide if they want to be annexed by the city.
As part of either process (resolution or petition), the voters will likely also vote on whether to
incur the indebtedness of the City and be taxed at the same rate as those already living within
the City. This is a separate matter on the ballot.
3. The Vote
If the only matter on the ballot is the annexation, it takes a majority of votes cast to be in favor
for the annexation to be approved. RCW 35.13.090(1).
If the approval of incurring indebtedness is on the ballot, a 3/5ths majority of voters must
approve, and there have to be at least 40% of the registered voters of the area proposed to be
annexed voting in the election. RCW 35.13.090(2).
If the issue of annexation and incurring indebtedness are combined, which is allowed under
RCW 35.13.095, the higher threshold of 3/5ths must vote in favor, and there have to be at least
40% of the registered voters of the area voting in the election. If, however, the combined
annexation and indebtedness question receives only a majority vote, the city may adopt a
resolution accepting the annexation without the assumption of indebtedness. RCW 35.13.095.
Attached is the section of the Annexation Handbook from MRSC which outlines with more
specificity the process for the election methods of annexation.
213
Methods of Annexation in
Q
First and Second Class Cities and Towns
Of the methods of annexation available to first and second class cities and towns,the 60 percent petition o
method is, by far,the most frequently used. Cities have found the election method to be extremely cumbersome. 5
-11
Because of this and the expense of conducting an election, annexation elections are infrequent.Statutes
rt
authorizing summary annexations for municipal purposes are much more straightforward, but may be utilized
only when a legitimate municipal reason for annexation can be shown, such as the use of the annexed land for
a city park or water tower. Finally,the statutes authorizing the annexation of federal areas are of very limited
application.The statutes relating to each of the methods of annexation are summarized in detail in this chapter.
n
Note that, in counties subject to the Growth Management Act, annexation may only occur with an urban growth
area (RCW 35.13.005). _n
lD
The various methods by which first and second class cities and towns may annex territory are the following: a
S.
• Election Method, Initiated by 20 Percent Petition
• Election Method, Initiated by Resolution
• The Sixty Percent Petition Annexation Methot
• Alternative Petition Annexation Method
• Annexation for Municipal Purposes
• Annexation of Federally-Owned Areas
• Annexation of Unincorporated Islands
• Alternative Unincorporated Island-Interlocal Method of Annexation
• Interlocal Agreement Annexation of Area Served by Fire District(s)
• City Boundary Line Adjustments
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 32 214
ELECTION METHOD, INITIATED BY 20 PERCENT PETITION
0
The annexation of contiguous, unincorporated territory may be initiated by a petition signed by 20 percent of Q
the number of voters living in the area to be annexed who voted in the last election. 0
m
x
If a county road separates a city from territory it proposes to annex, the road must also be o
annexed or the territory will not be contiguous. Noncontiguous property cannot be legally 5
annexed, except when it is annexed for municipal purposes, as discussed later in this chapter. -1'
rt
a)
Contents of Petition — Mandatory(RCW 35.13.030)
The petition must:
• Comply with the technical rules for petitions in RCW 35.21.005
n
• Describe in detail the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed
• State the number of voters in that area as nearly as possible
O.
• State any provisions as to the assumption of debt by the owners of property of the area proposed to be 3
annexed, and as to the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan for the area to be annexed
• Petition for the calling of an annexation election among the qualified voters in the area to be annexed
Contents of Petition —Optional (RCW 35.13.020, 35.13.0 ..♦)
The petition may also provide for the simultaneous creation of a community municipal corporation and for the
election of community council members pursuant to RCW 35.14.010-060. If the petition does so provide, it
must also describe the boundaries of the proposed service area, state the number of voters residing in that
area as nearly as possible, and ask for the election of community council members by the qualified voters
residing in the service area.
Signing of the Petition ( )
The petition must be signed by qualified voters residing in the area proposed for annexation equal in number
to 20 percent of the votes cast in the last election.
Certification of Petition by Prosecuting Attorney(RCW 35.13.020)
RCW 35.13.020 states that the petition must first be submitted to the county prosecuting attorney for
certification, "as set forth in RCW 35.13.025." However, the Legislature repealed RCW 35.13.025 in 1989, so
there is no process set out by which the county prosecuting attorney is to certify the petition. Because RCW
35.21.005, enacted by the 1996 Legislature, applies "wherever in this title[Title 35 RCW] petitions are required
to be signed and filed."
Practice Tip: MRSC suggests that RCW 35.13.020 provisions be followed with respect to the
petition and that the petitioners file the petition directly with the city.
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 33 215
Filing of Petition with City and Determination of Sufficiency of Petition
Within three working days of the filing of the petition with the city,the petition must be transmitted to the Q
county auditor for a determination of sufficiency( ). The officer whose duty it is to determine
petition sufficiency—the county auditor in the case of petitions signed by voters— 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.Id. o
5
Approval by City Council -r'
rt
• Prior Approval Required (RCW 35.13.020,35.13.040). Once the petition has been certified by the
prosecuting attorney, it is to be filed with the city council. The council must either approve or reject the
proposed annexation by resolution within 60 days of the date it was filed,and, also within this 60-day period,
notify the petitioners of its action either by mail or by publishing notice once each week for at least two weeks
in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. City council approval is required
for any annexation.A formal public hearing is optional (Meek v. Thurston County, 60 Wn.2d 461 (1962)).
lD
• Additional Conditions to Annexation (RCW 35.13.020). The city council, in approving the proposed
annexation, may also require that any or all of the following provisions be submitted to the voters in the °'
territory to be annexed:
— Whether property in the area proposed for annexation will be assessed and taxed at the same rate and
on the same basis as is property in the annexing city and will be required to assume all or any portion
of existing city indebtedness.
— Whether the city will require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan for the annexation
area, if one has been completed and filed as provided in RCW 35.13.177 and 35.13.178.
Petition Filed with County Governing Body; Notice to Review Board and,Where Applicable,to
Fire District and Library District (RCW 35.13.020,35.13.030,35.13.040, and 35.13.270
After city council approval,the petition is to be filed in the office of the county governing body. Notice of the
proposed annexation must be given to the boundary review board, if one has been established in the county
( ). Otherwise,the ad hoc annexation review board is to be convened by the mayor within 30
days after the filing of the petition with the county(RCW 35.13.171).
Cities in counties that have a boundary review board and that propose to annex territory of a fire district and/or
library district must provide notice to such district(s)of the proposed annexation simultaneously when notice of
the proposed annexation is provided to the boundary review board ( CW 35.13.270).
Review Board Review
• Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.100). If a boundary review board has been established within the
county, the board may assume jurisdiction over the annexation if,within 45 days of filing the notice of
intention, a request for review is made by:
— The city to which the annexation is proposed, the county within which the annexation is proposed, or
any other affected governmental unit; or
— Petition of registered voters or property owners.
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 34 216
If jurisdiction is not invoked within 45 days, the proposed annexation is deemed approved.
The board must act within 120 days of the review request, unless the board and the annexation initiators
0
agree to an extension. If no decision is made within 120 days and no extension is granted, the proposal is
deemed approved (see The Statutory Boundary Review Board). Review board approval is necessary for a
proposed election method annexation to proceed to an election.
0
• Ad Hoc Annexation Review Board.The mayor is to convene the ad hoc annexation review board within 5
30 days of the filing with the county legislative body of a resolution for an annexation election by the
rt
city council under RCW 35.13.015(see The Ad Hoc Annexation Review Board, for the process for board
review of the proposed annexation). Review board approval is necessary for a proposed election method
annexation to proceed to an election.
County Governing Body— Hearing on Petition
• Date(RCW 35.13.040). Upon the filing of the review board approval, the county governing body at its next rt
meeting is to set a date for the hearing on the petition.The hearing must be held not less than two weeks
nor more than four weeks from the date of the meeting.
• Notice(RCW 35.13.040).The petitioners must give notice of the hearing by publication once each week
at least two weeks prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be
annexed.
• Hearing and Determination (RCW 35.13.040). The county governing body is to conduct the hearing on
the date scheduled. If the petition complies with legal requirements and has been approved by the review
board,the county governing body must grant the petition. (Meek v. Thurston County, 60 Wn.2d 461, 467
(1962);Accord,AGO 1957 No.19.)
Limitation on Consideration of Conflicting Petitions or Resolutions (RCW 35.13.050)
After the filing of a petition for an annexation election with the county governing body, and pending its final
disposition,that body may not consider any other petition or resolution involving any of the territory addressed
by the filed petition. However, the petition may be withdrawn or another petition may be substituted for it by a
majority of the signers of the petition.
Effect of Competing City Incorporation Proposal (RCW 35.02.155)
• Annexation Resolution Adopted Within 90 Days of Filing of Incorporation Petition with County. In this
circumstance,when the city incorporation petition and the annexation resolution include any of the same
territory,the annexation will still go to a vote and the city can annex the territory involved,which would
then be removed from the incorporation proposal.
• Annexation Resolution Adopted More than 90 Days after Filing of Incorporation Petition with County. In
this circumstance, again where the two proposals contain some of the same territory,the annexation effort
may not proceed to an election and be approved by the voters unless the boundary review board modifies
the proposed incorporation to remove the territory that is proposed for annexation, the boundary review
board rejects the incorporation and the proposal is for a city of less than 7500 population, or the voters
reject the proposed incorporation. In counties where there is no boundary review board,the incorporation
proposal, if legally sufficient,will go to the voters,who must reject it before the annexation can proceed.
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 35 217
Election on Annexation
• Date of Election (RCW 35.13.060, 29A.04.33C). If the petition is granted and is certified as sufficient, $
35.13.060 requires that the city council indicate its preference to the county auditor for an election date on 0
the annexation. The date must be one of the special election dates in RCW 29A.04.330 and must be held
60 or more days after the date the city's preference is indicated.
0
RCW 29A.04.330 provides for special elections to be held on: 5
-11
— The second Tuesday in February;
rt
— The fourth Tuesday in April;
— The day of the primary election; or
— The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
n
The county auditor must call the special election on the date indicated by the city council.
• Cost of Election(RCW 35.13.020).The city to which annexation is proposed must bear the cost of the election.
O.
• Residency Requirements for Voting ( ).The statute provides that only registered voters who
have resided in the area proposed to be annexed for 90 days immediately preceding the election may vote
in the election. (It is probable that this 90-day durational residency requirement for voting in an annexation
election, if challenged,would be held to violate the state and federal constitutions. See article 6, section
1 of the state constitution and Moen v. Erlandson, 80 Wn.2d 755,757(1972).The code city statute that
imposed the same 90-day residency requirement was repealed by the 1994 legislature. Presumably, it was
only through inadvertence that the same legislature did not also repeal .)
• Voters' Pamphlet(RCW 29A.32.210-280).A first class city may, at least 90 days before any primary
or general election or at least 40 days before any special election, adopt an ordinance authorizing the
publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet to provide information on ballot measures, such as
an annexation election (RCW 29A.32.210).At least 45 days before the publication of the pamphlet,the city
must,for each ballot measure, formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments in favor of the measure
and a committee to prepare arguments against the measure(RCW 29A.32.2E: ).See RCW 29A.32.210-
for the rules regarding voter pamphlets.
A city planning to authorize publication of a voters' pamphlet should consult with the county auditor or
elections office regarding preparation of the pamphlet.
• Notice of Annexation Election (RCW 3513.080, 29A.52.35g ). Notice must be posted for at least two weeks
prior to the election date in four public places within the area proposed to be annexed, and the notice must
be published in compliance with the requirements in RCW 29A.52.355.
— Describe the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed;
— If the petition provides for the simultaneous creation of a community municipal corporation, describe
the boundaries of the proposed service area, and inform voters that they will be asked to cast ballots
for candidates for positions on the council;
— State the purpose of the election as stated in the petition or resolution; and
— Contain the following ballot language:
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 36 218
For annexation
Against annexation_ $
or
For annexation and adoption of comprehensive plan_
Against annexation and adoption of comprehensive plan_
0
or 5
For creation of a community municipal corporation_
rt
Against creation of a community municipal corporation_
or
0
For annexation and creation of community municipal corporation_
n
Against annexation and creation of community municipal corporation_
— If the creation of a community municipal corporation is included in the resolution or petition,the ballot
language in the notice must provide for the casting of ballots for candidates for positions on the a
community council. 3
— If the assumption of indebtedness provision is included in the petition,this proposition must be voted
upon as a separate item, and the notice of election must indicate the format:
For assumption of indebtedness_
Against assumption of indebtedness_
• Minimum Vote Required for Approval of Annexation (RCW 35,13.090,35.13,09F):
— The propositions for or against annexation, or for or against adoption of the comprehensive plan, or
for or against creation of a community municipal corporation (or any combination of these, as the case
may be) may be approved by a majority of the votes cast on the proposition.
— A proposition for or against the assumption of all or any portion of indebtedness may be approved by at
least 60 percent of those voting in the area proposed for annexation, if the number of persons voting is
at least 40 percent of the total number of votes cast in the area at the last preceding general election.
— The propositions to annex and to assume indebtedness may be combined on the same ballot. If the
measures are combined, the annexation and the assumption of indebtedness will be approved only if
at least 60 percent of the voters vote in favor and the number of persons voting is at least 40 percent
of the total number of votes cast in the area at the last preceding general election. However,the city
council may adopt a resolution accepting the annexation,without the assumption of debt,where the
combined ballot proposition is approved by a simple majority of the voters voting.
Duty of County Auditor(RCW 35.13.090)
If any of the propositions are approved by the electors, the county auditor is required after completion of the
canvassing of the returns to transmit to the county legislative authority and to the city clerk the following:
• A certificate of the election results, and
• A certified abstract of the vote, showing:
— The number who voted at the election,
— The number of votes cast for and against each proposition submitted to the voters,
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 37 219
— A statement of the number of votes cast in the territory at the last preceding general election.
If a proposition for the creation of a community municipal corporation was submitted and approved,the abstract
0
must include the number of votes cast for the candidates for community council positions.(Certificates of election
are to be issued to the successful candidates. They are to assume office within 10 days after the election.)
Duty of City or Town upon Receipt of Abstract of Vote (RCW 35.13.100) 0
5
The city council must then adopt ordinances providing for annexation and adoption of the comprehensive
plan, and/or the creation of a community municipal corporation, as is appropriate. If the voters approved an
assumption of debt,the ordinance should also provide for that. If the debt assumption proposition did not
receive the necessary vote, then the council must decide whether to enact an annexation ordinance without
that assumption of debt, or to decline to annex the territory.
n
Effective Date of Annexation (RCW 35.13.110)
n
The annexation is effective on the date fixed in the annexation ordinance.The relevant statute, RCW 35.13.110,
does not specify any date by which the annexation must be made effective.
a
S.
0
Practice Tip: Note, however, that there are important timing issues as to when an annexation
occurs with respect to when the city's property tax levy can be effective in the newly annexed
area and with respect to receipt of state-shared revenues, sales tax, and, if applicable, sales tax
equalization payments (see Financial Impacts).
Notice of Annexation
• Notice to State(OFM Certification)(RCW 35.13.260). The city must submit an annexation certificate and
additional supporting documents to the state Office of Financial Management(OFM)within 30 days of the
effective date of annexation specified in the annexation ordinance. See OFM's webpages on Certification
of Annexations: Procedures and Annexation and municipal boundary changes.
OFM files the approved annexation certificates on a quarterly basis. Filing dates are the last working
days of November, February, May, and August.Annexations are not approved and filed until all of OFM's
requirements are met. Revenues may be lost as a result of problems in the certification process, because
revenue distributions are not backdated.
• Notice to County, Light and Power and Gas Distribution Businesses,and,Where Applicable,to Fire
Protection and Library Districts(RCW 84.09.030,35.13.270, 35.13.150).At least 60 days before the
effective date of the annexation, the city is required by RCW 35.13.270 to provide to the county treasurer
and assessor and to light and power and gas distribution businesses, by certified mail or electronic means,
notice of the annexation that includes a list of annexed parcel numbers and street addresses.
If the city annexes territory within a fire district and/or library district(and the city has not been annexed to such
districts), it is required to provide the same notice to such district or districts.The county treasurer is required
to remit to the city only those road taxes and,where applicable,fire district and library district property taxes
collected 60 days or more after receipt of the notice. Light and power businesses and gas distribution businesses
are only required to remit to the city those utility taxes collected 60 days or more after receipt of the notice.
220
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 38
RCW 35.13.150 requires that a certified copy of the annexation ordinance be filed with the county governing
body. It is advisable to also file a notice of annexation (including the official boundaries and a map)with
other county departments that have requested notice. (In some counties, the county governing body will
0
notify other county departments upon receipt of three copies of an annexation notice.)
Cities in counties that do not have a boundary review board and that annex territory of a fire district or
library district must provide notice to such district(s)of the city's "resolution" approving the annexation. 0
(The statute, RCW 35.13.270, uses the term "resolution," but city action approving an annexation is in the 5
form of an ordinance, so the notice should be of the ordinance approving the annexation.)The notice must
rt
be by certified mail within seven days of the resolution (i.e., ordinance)approving the annexation, and it
must include a description of the annexed area.
• Notice to Department of Revenue.Sales tax changes may take effect only on January 1,April 1, or July 1.
The term "sales tax changes,"for purposes of this legislation, includes changes resulting from annexation
(RCW 82.14.055(4)). Local governments must provide notice to the Department of Revenue(DOR)at
least 75 days before the change takes place. RCW 82.14.055 does not specify what the"notice"to DOR
must consist of, but a copy of the annexation ordinance would likely be necessary. DOR suggests e-mail
notification followed-up by a mailed paper copy.
0
• Notice to City Departments.Although any annexation will impact some city departments more than others,
all should be advised of the annexation using the communication procedure that has proven most effective
for the city.
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 39 221
ELECTION METHOD, INITIATED BY RESOLUTION
0
The annexation of contiguous, unincorporated territory may also be initiated by city council resolution.With the
exception of the first few steps, the procedure is identical to that for the election method of annexation initiated 0
by the 20 percent petition.
m
x
0)
Contents of Resolution (RCW 35.13.015) o
5
The city council may initiate an election on an annexation proposal by enacting a resolution that: �!
rt
• Provides that the council has determined that the best interests and general welfare of the city would be
served by the annexation;
• Describes the boundaries of the area to be annexed; c
• States the number of voters in the area as nearly as possible;
• Petitions for an election on the annexation question among the qualified voters in the area; and
n
• States that the city will pay the cost of the annexation election.
A formal public hearing by the city council is optional. S.
0
0
Contents of Resolution -Optional Provisions (RCW 35.13.015)
The council must also decide whether any of the following optional provisions will be included in the resolution,
to be effective if the annexation is approved by the voters:
• That all property within the area annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same
rate and on the same basis as the property of the annexing city to pay for all or any portion of the then
outstanding indebtedness of the annexing city that was approved by the voters, contracted, or incurred
prior to or existing at the date of annexation.
• If the city council has completed and filed a proposed comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be
annexed pursuant to RCW 35.13.177-178,the resolution may provide that the plan will be simultaneously
adopted at the time of annexation.
• A community municipal corporation may also be simultaneously created upon annexation, if the resolution
calls for its creation and the election of community councilmembers as provided in RCW 35.14.010-.060
(see Community Municipal Corporation ). This proposition may be submitted as part of the annexation
proposition, or separately.
Filing of Resolution with County Governing Body and Review Board (RCW 35.13.015)
A certified copy of the resolution is to be filed with the county governing body of the county in which the
territory is located. Notice of the proposed annexation must be given to the boundary review board if one
has been established in the county. Otherwise, the ad hoc annexation review board is to be convened by the
mayor(RCW 35.13.171).
The county governing body is not required to conduct a public hearing prior to the election (AGO 1962 No. 90).
Review Board Review
See Review Board Review section in Election Method, Initiated by 20 Percent Petition.
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 40 222
Limitation on Consideration of Conflicting Petitions or Resolutions (RCW 35.13.050)
0
After the filing of an annexation resolution with the county and pending its final disposition, no other Q
annexation petition or resolution or incorporation petition that includes any of the same territory included in the 0
council resolution may be acted upon by any public official or body. However, the resolution may be withdrawn
or another resolution may be substituted for it by a majority of the city council.
0
Effect of Competing City Incorporation Proposal (RCW 35.02.155) 5
• Annexation Resolution Adopted Within 90 Days of Filing of Incorporation Petition with County. In this rt
circumstance,when a city incorporation petition and the annexation resolution include any of the same
territory,the annexation will still go to a vote and the city can annex the territory involved,which would
then be removed from the incorporation proposal.
n
• Annexation Resolution Adopted More than 90 Days after Filing of Incorporation Petition with County.
In this circumstance, again where the two proposals contain some of the same territory, the annexation
effort may not proceed to an election and be approved by the voters unless the boundary review board
modifies the proposed incorporation to remove the territory that is proposed for annexation,the boundary
review board rejects the incorporation and the proposal is for a city of less than 7500 population, or
the voters reject the proposed incorporation. In counties where there is no boundary review board, the
proposal, if legally sufficient,will go to the voters,who must reject it before the annexation can proceed.
Election on Annexation, Notice of Annexation, Etc.
For information on elections, notice, date of annexation, notice of annexation, etc., see the sections Election on
Annexation — Notice of Annexation in Election Method, Initiated by 20 Percent Petition.
223
Annexation by Washington Cities and Towns I JUNE 2020 41
Annexation Study Update
July 23, 2024
Summary
• FCS Group hired to study potential annexation areas within
the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA)
• Five areas were studied
• Existing conditions
• Development potential
• Fiscal impact on the City
• Updated with Sub Area
225
Study A re a s
,. �. m `$¢ Fad ab jx a5 : 'AFy,a.„, q^x.. �'.g ii7
w d F f a F ®� aim V
<p '& FF, F F "Fad $ .�F 8 ..
v
4
10"�"f 'T F 0$ Bf� F ,F F`� F b ^ �.,5�`4.. 0, p,F
.. 47 '...a, y S F � .r.
:1.77
�: ..... �,, AREA-5
a r , , ",
li ..5
f
¢e a
' i - c p,ado"6, "~•
, ',...-,,,,...,i:,.......,;;;;;;;;Iiiiiiii.7..::,-,;,,,i-,i,4.,., k. ...i ---i-Jr
•
_ AREA1 r
.... ...r,.. ` ■.. Annexation Areas ! Buildable Land :` ..
• _' Q Yakima Urban Area Vacant —� '�
d�0 Constraints* Partially Vacant/Underutilized •• 1* + a" I '
`••"` 'il L e eve ent Potential �
ARE°A;4 . other lopm
L u. Developed _ a Q 14•
J
... I e '°
•
r L.
AREA 2�—
i
AREA 3 _ �_,
fi
y
"., � a ,. ii i °,-
ili
�....,, ,., " ri ° 1
226
Area 1 : Terrace Heights
--<----ov.
r orisew%� •' •_ Existing Conditions
1r tf - e Jobs 2,642
\q
Api
Population 8,735
Area i
...� ..,.• Annexation Im @act
Potential New Jobs 2,373
Potential New Dwellings 2,713
C------
227
Terrace Heights Sub Area — Part of Area 1
„ ,
. , , .
, ,_ _ _.
_.
..._
Dwelling Units ■ Number
Potential New Dwelling Units .1
Jobs El Number
Potential New Service 770
t
- - - _ Potential New Industrial/ Other 1,299 k ,, %,„,, __
TOTAL 2,069
t
E---ILP
1
t
di : i
228
Area 2 : South Airport
Existing Conditions
Jobs 151
Population 945
.,, Annexation Impact
Area 2 Potential New Jobs 414
Potential New Dwellings 181
229
Area 3 : Bachelor Creek
Existing Conditions
Jobs 282
Population 1,429
Are,
Annexation Impact
-
Potential New Jobs 0
Potential New Dwellings 722
230
Area 4 : West Valley
Existing Conditions
Jobs 497
Population 1,352
Area Annexation Impact
Potential New Jobs 739
Potential New Dwellings 2,375
231
Area 5 : Northwest
Existing Conditions
• .4 f* Jobs 177
Population 809
Annexation Impact
Potential New Jobs 0
Potential New Dwellings 888
232
Annexation Process
Annexation Petition Options
• Sixty Percent Method (Most Common)
• Initiation: owners of at least 10% of assessed value
• Petition: owners of at 60% of assessed value
• Alternative Petition Method
• Initiation: owners of at least 10% of acreage
• Petition: a majority of owners of acreage + a majority of registered voters
within annexation area
• Election Method (rarely used today)
234
Annexation Petition Process
City Council
considers initial0 Circulation of 0 City Council votes
request petition on annexation
235
Annexation Petition Process
- No jurisdiction:
Initiators file with BRB must "assume • approved
Boundary Review jurisdiction" within
Board 45 days - otherwise, acts
within 120 days
236
Questions ?