HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/2008 07 Soccer Complex Grant Application; Resolution Amendment • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT 7
Item No.
. For Meeting Of August 5, 2008
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Amended Resolution to the Recreation and Conservation Office for
Soccer Complex Grant Application
SUBMITTED BY: Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager, 575 -6077 or 961 -4431
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: On April 15, 2008, by Item No.6, City Council approved a Resolution
authorizing application to the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for a grant
to further the development of a soccer complex lead by Yakima Youth Soccer Association (YYSA).
RCO has requested that the form of the resolution be amended to conform to their application
requirements; though no substantive changes in intent are made, staff respectively requests City Council
approval of the attached Resolution.
0 In the absence of the amended Resolution, the current grant application (RCO #08- 1370D) will not be
considered by the RCO. The application must be submitted by August 19 2008.
continued
Resolution X Ordinance _ Other (Specify)
Contract Mail to (name and address):
Phone
Funding Source No City funds are to be involved
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ..._ �`�
City Manager
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends the City Council, with understanding of the
obligations outlined below, approve the attached Resolution authorizing application to the State of
Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for a grant to further the development of a soccer
complex.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
e
Legal/BD
rev. effective 7/21/92
•
•
Continued from front page: ,
•
As explained' on the enclosed documents, the RCO grant for which we are applying brings with it
significant conditions (see the "anti- conversion" requirements) of which Council should be aware.
Specifically, use of this RCO grant money to develop the property as proposed will obligate the City to
maintain the entire project presented in the Grant application for perpetuity (not less than 25 years). Only
by obtaining permission from the IAC, which would require replacement in kind or betterment, can the land
outlined in the• proposal be utilized for any other use. In the event of a relocation, the cost to replace the
facility proposed (to the extent the impacted improvements were funded through the RCO grant or required
match, including acquisition of land), would be the obligation of the City of Yakima.
Given the disposition of the property as a wastewater utility asset, it's relationship to the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, as well as it's proximity to the Yakima River and location within the floodplain, there
exists a probability that there may be competing public needs for the property, over time. For instance,
"several organizations in the area are collaborating on a project that could relocate the levy to the east of
the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Such relocation is likely to require alterations and additions to our
treatment process. One of the possible mitigation methods would involve use of the land encompassed in
the YYSA proposal.
Also, EPA clean water standards continue to mandate additional treatment processes to the City's
Wastewater Division. A TMDL on the Yakima River is scheduled in the next few years. The ramifications
to the City with regard to wastewater treatment requirements of this action are yet to be determined. Much
of the land upon which to develop the infrastructure, which may be required by these future mandates,
could require ;'use of the property encompassed in the YYSA proposal.
At present there is no known near -term need for the property for wastewater or flood control purposes
addition, in that the resolution authorizes submittal of an application only, there are other decision points
necessary in the event an RCO grant is awarded, as well as an opportunity to address the potential
impacts discussed herein as part of any subsequent agreements necessary to implement the project.
While there are several 'unknowns with regard to future needs for the property,` the merits of the project
warrant a recommendation for approval of the Resolution.
•
•
{
•
-
- •
Legal/BD
rev. effective 7/21/92 I ' - i •
RESOLUTION NO. R -2008-
(Project RCO #08- 1370D)
A RESOLUTION authorizing application for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and
Recreation Program (WWRP) project (RCO #08- 1370D) to the Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW,
Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands.
WHEREAS, our organization has approved a comprehensive plan that includes this project
area; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of WWRP, state funding assistance is requested to aid in
financing the cost of land acquisition and /or facility development; and
WHEREAS, our organization considers it in the best public interest to complete the land
acquisition and /or facility development project described in the application; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
1. The City Manager be authorized to make formal application to the Recreation and
Conservation Office for funding assistance;
2. Any fund assistance received be used for implementation of the project referenced above;
3. Our organization hereby certifies its share of the project is committed and will be derived
from the Yakima Youth Soccer Association capital fund and donations from grants and the
S community;
We acknowledge that we are responsible for supporting all non -cash commitments to this
project should they not materialize.
5. We acknowledge that any property acquired or facility developed with financial aid from the
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) must be placed in use for the funded
purpose and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to
by our organization and RCFB
6. This resolution becomes part of a formal application to the Recreation and Conservation
Office; and
7. We have provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS th DAY OF , 2008.
David Edler, Mayor
Attest:
Deborah Moore
r
•
10 IAC MANUAL 15 — LWCF PROGRAM: POLIr7F• & PROJECT SELECTION — MARCH 10, 2006
Section 2 = Policies
Non - recreation uses such as agriculture occurring on the property at the time of
acquisition may continue for up to three years, contingent upon IAC and NPS
approval. A project sponsor will not receive payment on the project until the
non- recreation use is terminated.
If development will be delayed more than two years from the date of
acquisition, the project sponsor must include the following information in
the application:
■ Why immediate acquisition of the property is necessary;
■ What facilities will be developed and when;
■ The type of recreation access that will be provided during the
interim period;
■ What, if any, non - recreational uses will be continued on the property and
when will they be terminated;
Assurance that non - recreational uses will be terminated within three years from
the date of acquisition.
Protect Boundaries - Section b(f)(3), of the LWCF Act contains provisions to protect Federal
Section 6(F)(3) of the' % thoesunent s'an d the quality of assisted resources. The law is firm but flexible.
LWCF Act It recognizes that changes in land use or development may make some assisted
areas obsolete over time, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas. At the
same time, the law discourages casual "discards" of park and recreation facilities
• by ensuring that changes or "conversions from recreation use" will bear a cost —
a cost that assures taxpayers that investments in the "national recreation estate"
will not be squandered. The LWCF Act contains a clear provision to protect
grant - assisted areas from conversions:
Section ;6(3) No properly acquired or deteloped with assistance under this section
shall; ivltbnr the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor
recreation rues. The Secretary .shall apt'wte such ctmtersions onb if fs]he finds it to be
in acmni with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and
only upon such conditions as [s]he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other
recreation properties of at least equal fa it market value and of reasonably equivalent
usefulness and location.
Thi " conversion" requirement applies to all parks and other sites that have
been the subject of LWCF grants of any type, whether for acquisition,
development or renovation of facilities: In many cases, even a relatively small
LWCF grant (e.g. for development of a picnic shelter) in a park of hundreds or
even thousands of acres provides anti- conversion protection to the entire
park site.
To ensure the continued effectiveness of Section 6(f)(3) protection, several
management tools have been developed to monitor and correct changes in
assisted sites from year to year. For example, the NPS requires on -site
inspections of all grant - assisted areas and facilities at least once every five years,
most of which are conducted by cooperating state agencies.
• 6(f)(3) Boundary Map. One of the most important attachments to the project
application is the "6(f)(3) project boundary map." With each application, the
IAC MANUAL 15 — LWCF PROGRAM: POLICIES f+ PROJECT SELECTION — MARCH 10, 2006 it
Section 2 — Policies
grantee submits a project boundary map showing the park area to be covered by
Section 6(f)(3) anti- conversion protections. This map need not be a formal
survey document, but should contain enough site - specific information to serve
several purposes:
■ It ensures that both the grantee and the administering agency agree on the
property boundaries of the covered site at the time of project approval.
■ It provides location, size indicators, and a picture of key facilities and
landmarks to help project inspectors better identify and evaluate the site.
The significance of the project boundary should clearly delineate the area to be
included under the conversion provisions of Section 6(0 (3) of the LWCF Act.
All land within the project boundary must be dedicated in perpetuity to public
outdoor recreation. At a minimum, this area must be a viable public outdoor
recreation area that is capable of being self- sustaining without reliance upon
adjoining or additional areas not identified in the scope of the project. Except
in unusual cases where it can be shown that a lesser unit is clearly a self-
sustaining outdoor recreation resource, the area to include within the 6(0 (3)-
boundary map will include the larger park, open space, or recreation area being
developed or added to. Any change of use of the property within the boundary
for other than public outdoor recreation purposes will require replacement of
the converted land.
The requirements for this map are:
1. Use a sheet size 8 1/2" x 11" or a multiple thereof, to allow for filing. The
maximum size of any one sheet should be 22" x 34 ".
2. The map must be to scale, show the scale, and the scale should be sufficient
to clearly distinguish the pertinent features of the park. The map must use a
bar scale — a relational scale is not sufficient.
3. The map must be dated and show park name and a north directional arrow.
4. The park boundary line must be shown and if there is a difference between
the park boundary and project boundary, this must also be clearly shown.
5. Al] existing facilities, including utilities must be shown. If there has been a
previous LWCF project within the park boundary, that project number
should be shown on the map, indicating the funded items.
6. Indicate all of the facilities to be included in the project application, either by
appropriate notes or by color - coding.
7. All proposed facilities to be constructed in the future should also be shown,
if known. The future facilities may be shown to scale or by notes indicating
general use areas such as "future picnic area" or "future ballfield."
8. The map must show all known outstanding rights and interests in the area.
Known easements, deed /lease restrictions, and reversionary interests are to
be included.
The map must be sufficient to legally identify the lands to be afforded
protection under Section 6(0(3) of the LWCF Act The following are
acceptable methods for referencing property boundaries: deed, references
adjoining ownerships, adjoining easements of record, adjoining water bodies or
other natural landmarks, metes and bounds, government survey, or
•