Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2015-139 City Urban Growth and Development Master Agreement with Yakima CountyRESOLUTION NO. R-2015-139 A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a Master Interlocal Agreement between the City of Yakima and Yakima County which updates and continues to provide a management structure for growth and development that is coordinated and meets the goals and policies of the Growth Management Act for development occurring within the City's Urban Growth Area WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in 1991 changed the way comprehensive land use planning is carried out in the state, requiring that counties and cities update their comprehensive land use plans to be consistent with state wide goals, and to coordinate their planning efforts with one another; and WHEREAS, also in 1990, the legislature passed RCW 36.70A.210 requiring counties and cities to coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans through as set of mutually developed County Wide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, in 1993 Yakima County and the City of Yakima jointly developed their county wide planning policies titled Master Interlocal Agreement For Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County; and WHEREAS, both the City and County updated the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies in 2003; and WHEREAS, over the past twelve years there have been significant changes in state law, the City's Urban Growth Area which includes the adoption of the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan, and the continued coordination towards of the development of the City of Yakima's 2040 Horizon Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, both City and County staff have held multiple meetings to cooperatively review and revised the County Wide Policies to meet the needs of both the City and County; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that approval of such interlocal agreement is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote interlocal cooperation, and continue to provide a management structure for growth and development that is coordinated and meets the goals and policies of the Growth Management Act; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The "Master Interlocal Agreement For Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County" between City of Yakima and Yakima County for management of growth and development within the City of Yakima's Urban Growth Area," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and administer such agreement; now, therefore, ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 17th day of November, 2015. ATTEST. Acting City Cle 1 Micah Cwle, Mayor Exhibit "A" Master Interlocal Agreement MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREAMBLE A. Purpose 1 B. Background 2 II. AGREEMENT A. Parties to Agreement 3 B. Authority 3 C. Objectives 3 D. Cooperative Planning System 4 E. Planning Implementation 5 F. Infrastructure Services and Level of Service 8 G. Annexation 12 H. Sub -Agreements 14 I. General Provisions 15 III. SIGNATURES I. PREAMBLE A. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this Agreement is to provide a management structure for growth and development occurring in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to ensure that coordinated Growth Management Act (GMA) goals will be met. In areas that are outside of city limits but within the UGA, the County continues to have legal jurisdiction but both the County and respective City have interests. The purpose of UGA designation is to target these areas for urban growth and urban levels of services, and eventual annexation or incorporation. Consequently, the County and cities' must have coordinated visions for urban density land use in these areas with appropriate development standards to assure consistency with the GMA. This Agreement is intended to meet the objectives of the GMA, set out processes for coordination of planning, provide public improvements, and to clarify Page 1 of 18 C•\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 administrative and development processes for citizens, the Cities and the County. B. BACKGROUND Outlined below are statute, regulation, and agreements that provide the framework for this Agreement. 1. Growth Management Act The enactment of GMA by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 fundamentally changed the way comprehensive land use planning is carried out in the state. The GMA requires that counties and cities update their comprehensive land use plans consistent with statewide goals and to coordinate their planning efforts with each other. 2. County -wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) To assure that this coordination is carried out, the 1991 Legislature passed companion legislation (RCW 36 70A.210) requiring counties and cities to coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans through a set of mutually developed CWPPs. Following review and recommendation by the Cities, the CWPPs were adopted by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners in June 1993 and updated in 2003. This agreement implements the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies (CWPP) as adopted by Yakima County and its cities. 3. Urban Growth Areas The GMA states that urban growth should first be located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. [RCW 36.70A.110(3)] Therefore, the CWPPs include specific policies to encourage growth in UGAs and discourage urban growth outside of these areas. Also, these policies strive for development within UGAs in a logical fashion outward from the edge of developed land in conjunction with the provision of infrastructure and urban services. Page 2 of 18 C \Users\robinnAppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 4. Provision of Services within UGAs The GMA recognizes that, in general, the Cities are the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. RCW 36.70A.110(4). This preference does not preclude provision of services by other providers, but suggests if all factors were equal in an evaluation of potential service, the City is the preferred provider of urban governmental services. II. AGREEMENT A. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into individually between Yakima County (hereinafter referred to as the "County") and each of the following municipalities: the Cities of Grandview, Granger, Mabton, Moxee, Selah, Sunnyside, Tieton, Toppenish, Union Gap, Wapato, Yakima and Zillah, the Towns of Harrah and Naches (hereinafter referred to as the "City" or "Cities"). B. AUTHORITY This Agreement constitutes an exercise of authority granted to the Cities and the County under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and Chapter 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. Copies of this Agreement and any sub -agreements shall be filed by Yakima County with the Yakima County Auditor and the Washington State Department of Commerce. C. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Agreement are: 1. To implement the provisions of GMA and the CWPPs, including facilitation of urban growth within UGAs, while maintaining consistency with the County's and City's comprehensive plan. 2. To assure allowable growth and development within UGAs is clearly understood by the Cities, the County, other service providers and citizens in these areas. 3. To assure that the policies and procedures leading to such development are clearly defined. 4. To define responsibility for the provision of urban services and the level of service to be provided. 5. To assure communication among the Cities, the County and citizens as planning, growth, and development decisions are made. Page 3 of 18 C'\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 6. To use decision-making processes that are consistent with the County's and City's responsibilities, and which consider the long term objectives, plans and development standards of the Cities. 7 To provide for common and joint processes of the Cities and the County to foster overall operational partnership, efficiency, and unified policy and direction. 8. To assure that public participation processes targeting property owners and residents of affected UGAs areas are undertaken as this Agreement is implemented. 9. To encourage economic development with a balanced application of the goals, policies, and strategies of the various comprehensive plans. 10. To establish the protocols and responsibilities for developing and maintaining the common system for data collection and analysis. D. COOPERATIVE PLANNING SYSTEM 1. UGA Boundaries The record of official UGA boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act shall be maintained as a part of the future land use map in the County's adopted comprehensive plan. Copies of the official UGA boundary shall be provided to the City. Cities shall notify the County of any disparities. The County adopts UGA boundaries consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, CWPPs, YCC Title 166.10 and this Agreement. 2. Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations To ensure consistency between future land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas not covered by adopted subarea plans, the County will adopt common future land use designations for those properties and zone them accordingly. The plan designations and zoning within these areas will be determined in a coordinated effort between the County and each city as part of the scheduled County -wide UGA updates process, set forth in YCC Title 166.10 and this Agreement. The County will ensure that land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas covered under an adopted subarea plan are consistent with the applicable subarea plan. Page 4 of 18 C'\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 The Cities may provide the County with pre -zoning map(s) during the County -wide UGA update process depicting the City's preferred zoning for the unincorporated portions of their respective UGA. Said pre - zoning shall be consistent with comprehensive plan land use designations. When utilized, the pre -zoning map shall serve as an indication of the City's intentions with respect to land uses in the area upon annexation, and shall be considered by the County when making revisions. E. PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION Since UGAs are intended to accommodate urban growth and eventually be part of cities, a mechanism is needed to assure that planning and permitting decisions of the County are generally consistent with the planning objectives and development standards of the Cities. 1. Amending Urban Growth Boundaries Urban Growth Areas are intended to implement the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), CWPPs and the planning and land use objectives of adopted comprehensive plans by encouraging development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or as documented in each jurisdictions capital facilities plan. To implement the goals of this Agreement, all jurisdictions shall adhere to the following requirements for the review of urban growth areas and amendments to the boundaries: a. Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Cycle Yakima County shall conduct a county -wide UGA review according to the schedules established in YCC Title 16B.10.040 (5), or at a minimum the timeframes established under RCW 36.70A.130.. Cities may request amendments to UGA boundaries outside of the county -wide UGA review schedules listed above under the emergency amendment process allowed under RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). Emergency amendment requests must be made in writing to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and if accepted, the proposed amendment will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Page 5 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b Population Allocations The baseline for the twenty-year County -wide population forecasts shall be based on the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management (OFM) 20 -year GMA population projections. The population forecasts will be allocated to the Cities and the unincorporated urban areas by Yakima County, as set forth in YCC 166.10.040 and the GMA. c. Buildable Lands Model (BLM) The BLM allows local jurisdictions to compare anticipated growth against actual development over time to determine if there is enough suitable land inside the UGA to accommodate the growth anticipated during the remaining portion of the 20 - year planning period and if jurisdictions are achieving their adopted urban densities inside urban growth areas. This process may be used by Yakima County if determined necessary. d. Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) The LCA is to establish an objective approach by which to determine the current supply of land and how much population and development each jurisdiction can expect to accommodate under current zoning and development regulations in the existing incorporated and unincorporated UGAs. Yakima County shall conduct the LCA, using the LCA methodology outlined in the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, YCC 16B.10.095 (2), the CWPPs and this Agreement. e. Capital Facilities Planning Cities must submit an adopted Capital Facilities Plan that includes any capital assets that are needed to accommodate future growth within the proposed or existing urban growth area as part of any UGA update process. To determine what is needed, the levels of service (LOS) standards for transportation facilities must be identified. LOS standards on other capital facilities are strongly encouraged. This should be consistent with the 20 -year planning horizon and the densities and distribution of growth identified during the UGA update process. This forecast must include those capital facilities required by RCW 36.70A that are planned to be provided within the planning period, including the general locations and anticipated capacity needed. The lack of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan Page 6 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 for any proposed expansion area or areas currently within an urban growth area indicates that the area is not ready for urban growth and that the proposal will be denied or the area will be removed from the UGA. 2. Amending Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts a. Future Land Use Designation Amendments Amendment requests to change future land use designations for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas will be accepted by the County during the scheduled biennial amendment cycle, set forth in YCC 16B.10. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10 and this Agreement. Future land use designations and zoning for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas were developed as part of a coordinated effort between Yakima County and the cities during the county -wide UGA review process. Therefore, if a property owner requests a future land use designation amendment outside of the scheduled five year UGA review process Yakima County will notify the applicable city of the proposed amendment request for their recommendation. The city's recommendation will be forwarded to the Yakima County Planning Commission and to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners for consideration as part of the legislative amendment review process. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions outside of a scheduled county -wide UGA review process will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Amendments to future land use designation for property located within the unincorporated urban growth area, must refer to the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table to determine whether the desired plan designation is consistent with the plan designation as shown in the County Future Land Use Consistency Table. Page 7 of 18 C'\Users\robinrWppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXE0L1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 b. Zoning District Amendments Property owners wishing to rezone land within the unincorporated urban growth area to a different zoning district must show that the rezone is consistent with the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table. Rezones that are contingent upon legislative approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment, as indicated in Table 19.36-1 shall be considered a major rezone and subject to the procedures and requirements set forth in subsection a. above, YCC 166.10 and YCC 19.36. F. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE General Provisions for Capital Facilities Planning and Mapping - Consistency with GMA In accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(3) and WAC 365-196-415, the Cities and the County will develop Capital Facilities Plans that cover the entire UGA. Cities shall provide the County with a copy of their most current adopted Capital Facilities Plan at least six months prior to any scheduled UGA update process. Maps of City and County utilities and transportation infrastructure not contingent to a Capital Facilities Plan amendment will be provided to the County's GIS's Department when updated, which will maintain the regional GIS database, so as to be accessible to all parties. Opportunities for focused and targeted public investment, which directs capital improvement expenditures into specific geographic areas to produce "fully -serviced land" for development, will be encouraged. This strategy is intended to maximize the use of limited public funds by coordinating government expenditures and focusing development first in some areas, then in others. Selection of targeted investment corridors will consider and be consistent with regional priorities. Separate sub -agreements or interlocal agreements may be entered into by the affected parties to provide the details for the concepts of particular focused targeted public investment corridors. The following provisions apply to the review and permitting process for proposed developments in unincorporated portions of Urban Growth Areas: 1. Streets a. Responsibility Yakima County and cities will be responsible for assuring that all streets within the UGA are constructed concurrently with development and that the impacts generated by the development on the transportation facilities within both the Page 8 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 unincorporated and incorporated UGA are properly considered and the appropriate mitigation is required. b. Design Standards Yakima County will utilize the provisions of Yakima County Code Title 19 as design standards for urban development of streets, and associated structures, unless otherwise specified in a sub -agreement. It is intended that County design standards will be generally consistent with standards adopted by the City; therefore the County may modify its required design standards when a City identifies the specific standards that may apply and demonstrates that applying the City's development standards are consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(3) and the applicable Capital Facilities Plan. c. Level of Service (LOS) Transportation Policy — LOS The establishment of level of service policies for streets within the urban growth area will be done cooperatively to assure that service level thresholds are agreed upon for all transportation facilities. This effort will be coordinated with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) pursuant to RCW 47.80.023. Performance Evaluation — LOS The Cities and the County will monitor and review transportation LOS policies and their effect in the urban growth area and make adjustments as mutually agreed upon. 2. Water a. Responsibility The Cities are the preferred provider of services within the Urban Growth Areas. Responsibility for the provision of water service by a water purveyor approved by Washington State Department of Health (DOH) will be depicted on a service area map. The service area map will be maintained by the County in the regional GIS database. Consistent with DOH regulations, the designated water purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of water Page 9 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 service within the 20 -year planning horizon to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan. b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Water Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate water service to potential customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the developer. (3) Rates - Water rates are the responsibility of the purveyor. c. Standards Design and construction of water systems shall, at a minimum meet DOH regulations and guidelines and the purveyor's standards. The Cities shall submit to the County any specific standards which are to be applied within their respective UGA. 3. Sewer a. Responsibility Sewer service is expected to be provided by cities or sewer service providers approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) or the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within boundaries of the Yakama Nation,. Responsibility for the provision of sewer service will be depicted on a service area map in the regional GIS database maintained by the County in cooperation with the Cities and sewer service providers. Consistent with DOE, DOH and EPA regulations, the designated sewer purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of sewer service to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan within the 20 -year planning horizon. Page 10 of 18 C'\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Sewer Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate sewer service to potential customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the provider. (3) Rates - Sewer rates are the responsibility of the provider. c. Standards The minimum design standards for design and construction of sewer facilities shall be those contained in the applicable city, DOE, DOH or EPA statutes and regulations or guidance documents. 4. Stormwater a. Responsibility The County will have responsibility for assuring that stormwater generated from development outside City limits will be handled in a manner consistent with standards outlined below. b. Financial and Service Policies Design and construction of stormwater collection, retention, conveyance, treatment and disposal systems will be the responsibility of the developer. It is current County policy to require on-site retention, treatment, and disposal of stormwater. Exceptions to this policy will only be allowed if off-site collection, treatment, and disposal services are available from a municipality, or other entity properly authorized to collect and dispose of such flows. c. Standards All stormwater shall be retained and disposed on-site according to processes and design(s) approved by the County unless an agreement with a public entity is in place for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of such flows. Page 11 of 18 C'\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 G. ANNEXATION It is the intent of the parties to promote orderly and contiguous development of the City through annexation 1. Development Contiguous to City Boundaries — Annexation to be Promoted The County agrees that it will not provide utility services to properties within a city's UGA without the specific approval of the respective City, unless the property is in an existing utility service area of the County. It is the City's responsibility to provide utility service to properties within their respective UGA's within the 20 -year planning horizon. 2. Development Review Within Pending Annexation Areas a. Early Transfer of Authority It is the intent of the parties to facilitate timely processing of development applications for properties which are included within areas subject to active annexation proceedings. When a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation has been approved by the City and submitted to the Boundary Review Board, the city may in writing, request from the County transfer of authority to accept and review project permits prior to the effective date of annexation. b. County Review of Submitted Project Permits Complete project permit applications submitted to the County prior to the effective date of annexation will be processed and reviewed by the County to the review stage covered by the project permit application fee. "Review stage" is defined for subdivisions and short subdivisions to include preliminary plat approval, plat construction plan approval, inspection, or final plat processing. "Review stage" for all other land use permit applications includes preliminary approval, construction plan approval, construction inspections and final sign -off, but does not include related building permit applications unless a complete building permit application is submitted to the County prior to the effective date of the annexation. Page 12 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 (1) Vesting Any complete project permit application submitted to the County that has vested under statutory or common law shall be subject to the Yakima County laws and regulations in effect at the time the County deemed the project permit application complete. (2) Land Use Dedications, Deeds, or Conveyances Final plats or other dedications of public property will be transmitted to the City for City Council acceptance of dedication of right-of-way or public easements, if dedication occurs after the effective date of annexation. Dedications, deeds, or conveyances will be in the name of the City after the effective date of the annexation and will be forwarded to the City Council for acceptance by the City even if the County is continuing to process the permit application. (3) Appeals of Land use Permits The County agrees to be responsible for defending, all permits decisions issued by the county for complete project permit applications submitted prior to annexation. (4) Permit Renewal or Extension (5) After the effective date of annexation, any request to renew a building permit or to renew or extend a land use permit issued by the County in the annexation area is to be made to and administered by the City. Land use Code Enforcement Cases Any pending land use code enforcement cases in the annexation area will be transferred to the City on the effective date of the annexation. Any further action in those cases will be the responsibility of the City at the City's discretion. (6) Enforcement of County Conditions Following the effective date of the annexation, the City agrees to enforce any conditions imposed by the county Page 13 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doe 8/11/2015 (7) relating to the issuance of a building or land use permit in an area that has been annexed; to the same extent it enforces its own conditions. Financial Considerations/Revenue Adjustments and Transfers If the County intends to upgrade or replace infrastructure in a UGA, and such an investment would result in significant expense or indebtedness, then the County may seek a specific agreement with the other City to address the financial impacts of future annexation. Negotiations will provide for coordinated infrastructure development, appropriate allocation of costs and/or revenue sharing arrangements, and optimal leveraging of local funds to obtain available grants and loans. (8) Administration of Bonds Any performance, maintenance or other bond issued by the County to guarantee performance, maintenance or completion of work associated with the issuance of a permit will be administered by the County to completion. Any additional bonding required after annexation occurs will be determined, accepted and administered by the City along with responsibility for enforcement of conditions tied to said bonds. It shall be the City's responsibility to notify the County of the acceptance of said bonds in order for the County to release interest in any bonds the County may still hold. (9) Records Transfer The City may copy and/or transfer necessary County records, as appropriate, prior to and following annexation. The City may arrange for off-site duplication of records under appropriate safeguards for the protection of records as approved by the County. H. SUB -AGREEMENTS Sub -agreements that provide additional detail for implementing various aspects of this Agreement are anticipated, provided that the sub -agreements Page 14 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015 doc 8/11/2015 do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. Copies of sub - agreements shall be distributed to all parties to this Agreement. I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Relationship to Existing Laws and Statutes Except as specifically provided herein, the Cities and the County do not abrogate the decision-making authority vested in them by law. This Agreement in no way modifies or supersedes existing state laws and statutes. 2. Oversight The County -wide Planning Policy Committee, or its successor, shall be designated as responsible for overseeing implementation of this Agreement. 3. ILA Noncompliance The Cities and the County believe this ILA is in the best interests of the public and therefore will fully adhere to this ILA. In the event any party identifies an issue they believe is not consistent with this ILA the following process may be undertaken: a. The party shall give written notification within 30 days to the other parties of concern. In addition, the party shall give notice to all non -affected parties of this agreement. The affected parties shall document the nature of the dispute and their respective options for resolution, if the parties are not able to resolve the matter within 10 business days they shall seek mediation through the Dispute Resolution Center. b. If the disputing parties are still at an impasse, following mediation they shall seek resolution through the Yakima County Superior Court. c. If final resolution results in the need for amendments to the ILA, said amendments shall be processed in accordance with subsection (4) of this Agreement. The dispute resolution process identified above does not preclude any party with standing from filing an appeal with the Washington State Growth Management Hearing Board or LUPA court if applicable. Page 15 of 18 C'\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1 \ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 4. Amendments to the ILA The Cities and the County recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections or to update the Agreement. Amendments not involving all parties shall be handled as sub -agreements as provided for in Section H, above. 5. Amendments to the CWPP The CWPPs have set a framework for comprehensive planning under GMA, but lack a process for amending the CWPPs and integrating the amendments into the comprehensive planning and implementation process. Since joint and cooperative planning will be accomplished through the provisions of the CWPPs it is important to provide for policy adjustments from time to time. The parties agree to the following process. a. Policy amendments shall be consistent with the framework and purpose of the CWPPs. b. Amendments require approval by 60% of the jurisdictions representing at least 51% of the County population prior to adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. c. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee will consider amendments to the CWPPs annually The Committee should schedule review of these amendments six months in advance of the process for consideration of annual comprehensive plan changes. d. Proposed amendments will be provided to all Committee members at least four weeks prior to consideration by the Committee. e. Committee members are not expected to be able to commit their respective jurisdictions, but they are expected to fully represent the balance of concerns and views which may affect their jurisdiction's ability to approve the proposed amendments. f Within 30 days of a decision by the Policy Committee, jurisdictions will be asked to indicate approval by signing the revised document. Page 16 of 18 C•\Users\robinrWppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 6. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee The CWPPC shall hold a meeting each year to report on the progress of implementing the CWPPs and this Agreement. This meeting will provide an opportunity for jurisdictions to discuss planning and development related issues and suggest changes to this Agreement as necessary. Each City and the County will be responsible for maintaining its designated member. 7. Effective Date and Term of the ILA Agreement This Agreement shall be effective upon passage by the County and all of the Cities. The term of this Agreement shall be for five years from the effective date hereof and shall automatically be renewed for subsequent five year terms. No later than 180 days before the automatic renewal date, any party may notify the other parties in writing of a desire to revise the Agreement. 8. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement. III. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by each party to this Agreement as evidenced by signature pages affixed to this agreement. Page 17 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1 \ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by SEAL: _1 of alc;t&& (Na e of City/ltown/County) Date: \.\ \� Attest: 6 ity Clerk/Town CI-rk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: (ill4/;) rney/Corporate Counsel CITY CONTRACT NO: /579 RESOLUTION NO' R- ois %3, Page 18 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\LocaI\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXE0L1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F I NALB OCC Version_Mai ledforSig natu re_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 nun 11,1:1141r10 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. S.G. For Meeting of: November 17, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Resolution authorizing an Master Interlo c al Agreement with Yakima County which updates and continues to provide a management structure for growth within the City's Urban Growth Area SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport , Community Development Director Jeff Peters, Supervising Planner - 509-575-6163 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: As a requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Yakima County and the incorporated cities are required to maintain the "Countywide Planning Policies" as well as enter into Interlocal Agreements that implement these policies. Over this year, City of Yakima staff has cooperatively worked with Yakima County to review and revise these County Wide Policies to meet the needs of both City and County, which has resulted in the proposed Interlocal Agreement which will promote inter -jurisdiction cooperation, and continue to provide a management structure for growth and development that is coordinated and meets the goals and policies of the Growth Management Act for years to come. The County Wide Planning Policy document was last amended in 2003. Resolution: X Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: NA Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Public Trust and Accountability Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the accompanying resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Master Interlocal Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date IResollution .for Master Untertocall Agreement 10/29/2015 Exhibit A Untertocall Agreement 10/29/2015 Type Resollutlion E:Exhibit it District One Michael D. Lelta September 21, 2015 City of Yakima Attn: Mayor Micah Cawley 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima WA 98901 * District Two Kevin J. Bouchey Re: Approval of Updated Master Interlocal Agreement RECEIVE: a Ct IJi I; CITY OF YAKIMA SEP 242015 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL TV COMMISSIONERS * District Three Rand Elliott SEP 2 5 201 CITY L GA Dear Mayor Cawley: Over the last 8 months, Yakima County and each of the fourteen cities and towns has been working diligently on updating the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. The overall intent of the update was to make the Master Interlocal Agreement more user friendly, better reflect current Growth Management Act requirements and to establish clearer management structure for growth and development within the unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. The collaborative process used to update the Master Interlocal Agreement was very successful and should prove beneficial for future cooperative planning efforts between Yakima County and your jurisdiction. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of final updated Master Interlocal Agreement. The Master Interlocal Agreement needs your jurisdiction's final approval and signature. After the Master Interlocal Agreement is approved and signed, please return the signature page to our office. Once all signatures are gathered, Yakima County will sign the agreement and provide a final approved copy to each jurisdiction. Respectfully, Board r.f Yakima County Commissioners d Elliott, Chairman hata, Con rtnissio for rah' m y, Commissioner rrd of County Commissioners Washington 128 North Second Street • Yakima, Washington 98901 • 509-574-1500 • FAX: 509-574-1501 Memorandum Date: January 13, 2016 To: Mayor Avina Gutierrez cc: CED Director Joan Davenport From: Yakima County Planning Division Phil Hoge, Project Planner RE: Interlocal Agreement (ILA) RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA JAN 1 5 2016 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL Enclosed please find a copy of the adopted revised Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. It became effective on December 29, 2015 upon being signed by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners, after being signed all cities and towns in Yakima County. The original is being recorded with the Yakima County Auditor, and we will email a PDF to each city/town after it is returned by the Auditor's office. MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREAMBLE A. Purpose 1 B. Background 2 II. AGREEMENT A. Parties to Agreement 3 B. Authority 3 C. Objectives 3 D. Cooperative Planning System 4 E. Planning Implementation 5 F. Infrastructure Services and Level of Service 8 G. Annexation 12 H. Sub -Agreements 14 I. General Provisions 15 III. SIGNATURES I. PREAMBLE A. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this Agreement is to provide a management structure for growth and development occurring in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to ensure that coordinated Growth Management Act (GMA) goals will be met. In areas that are outside of city limits but within the UGA, the County continues to have legal jurisdiction but both the County and respective City have interests. The purpose of UGA designation is to target these areas for urban growth and urban levels of services, and eventual annexation or incorporation. Consequently, the County and cities' must have coordinated visions for urban density land use in these areas with appropriate development standards to assure consistency with the GMA. This Agreement is intended to meet the objectives of the GMA, set out processes for coordination of planning, provide public improvements, and to clarify Page 1 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVe rsion_Mailedf orSig natu re_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 administrative and development processes for citizens, the Cities and the County. B. BACKGROUND Outlined below are statute, regulation, and agreements that provide the framework for this Agreement. 1. Growth Management Act The enactment of GMA by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 fundamentally changed the way comprehensive land use planning is carried out in the state. The GMA requires that counties and cities update their comprehensive land use plans consistent with statewide goals and to coordinate their planning efforts with each other. 2. County -wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) To assure that this coordination is carried out, the 1991 Legislature passed companion legislation (RCW 36.70A.210) requiring counties and cities to coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans through a set of mutually developed CWPPs. Following review and recommendation by the Cities, the CWPPs were adopted by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners in June 1993 and updated in 2003. This agreement implements the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies (CWPP) as adopted by Yakima County and its cities. 3. Urban Growth Areas The GMA states that urban growth should first be located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. [RCW 36.70A.110(3)] Therefore, the CWPPs include specific policies to encourage growth in UGAs and discourage urban growth outside of these areas. Also, these policies strive for development within UGAs in a logical fashion outward from the edge of developed land in conjunction with the provision of infrastructure and urban services. Page 2 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 4. Provision of Services within UGAs The GMA recognizes that, in general, the Cities are the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. RCW 36.70A.110(4). This preference does not preclude provision of services by other providers, but suggests if all factors were equal in an evaluation of potential service, the City is the preferred provider of urban governmental services. II. AGREEMENT A. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into individually between Yakima County (hereinafter referred to as the "County") and each of the following municipalities: the Cities of Grandview, Granger, Mabton, Moxee, Selah, Sunnyside, Tieton, Toppenish, Union Gap, Wapato, Yakima and Zillah, the Towns of Harrah and Naches (hereinafter referred to as the "City" or "Cities"). B. AUTHORITY This Agreement constitutes an exercise of authority granted to the Cities and the County under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and Chapter 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. Copies of this Agreement and any sub -agreements shall be filed by Yakima County with the Yakima County Auditor and the Washington State Department of Commerce. C. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Agreement are: 1. To implement the provisions of GMA and the CWPPs, including facilitation of urban growth within UGAs, while maintaining consistency with the County's and City's comprehensive plan. 2. To assure allowable growth and development within UGAs is clearly understood by the Cities, the County, other service providers and citizens in these areas. 3. To assure that the policies and procedures leading to such development are clearly defined. 4. To define responsibility for the provision of urban services and the level of service to be provided. 5. To assure communication among the Cities, the County and citizens as planning, growth, and development decisions are made. Page 3 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA2signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_Mai IedforSig natu re_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 6. To use decision-making processes that are consistent with the County's and City's responsibilities, and which consider the long term objectives, plans and development standards of the Cities. 7. To provide for common and joint processes of the Cities and the County to foster overall operational partnership, efficiency, and unified policy and direction. 8. To assure that public participation processes targeting property owners and residents of affected UGAs areas are undertaken as this Agreement is implemented. 9. To encourage economic development with a balanced application of the goals, policies, and strategies of the various comprehensive plans. 10. To establish the protocols and responsibilities for developing and maintaining the common system for data collection and analysis. D. COOPERATIVE PLANNING SYSTEM 1. UGA Boundaries The record of official UGA boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act shall be maintained as a part of the future land use map in the County's adopted comprehensive plan. Copies of the official UGA boundary shall be provided to the City. Cities shall notify the County of any disparities. The County adopts UGA boundaries consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, CWPPs, YCC Title 16B.10 and this Agreement. 2. Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations To ensure consistency between future land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas not covered by adopted subarea plans, the County will adopt common future land use designations for those properties and zone them accordingly. The plan designations and zoning within these areas will be determined in a coordinated effort between the County and each city as part of the scheduled County -wide UGA updates process, set forth in YCC Title 166.10 and this Agreement. The County will ensure that land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas covered under an adopted subarea plan are consistent with the applicable subarea plan. Page 4 of 18 G:\Long Range \Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 The Cities may provide the County with pre -zoning map(s) during the County -wide UGA update process depicting the City's preferred zoning for the unincorporated portions of their respective UGA. Said pre - zoning shall be consistent with comprehensive plan land use designations. When utilized, the pre -zoning map shall serve as an indication of the City's intentions with respect to land uses in the area upon annexation, and shall be considered by the County when making revisions. E. PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION Since UGAs are intended to accommodate urban growth and eventually be part of cities, a mechanism is needed to assure that planning and permitting decisions of the County are generally consistent with the planning objectives and development standards of the Cities. 1. Amending Urban Growth Boundaries Urban Growth Areas are intended to implement the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), CWPPs and the planning and land use objectives of adopted comprehensive plans by encouraging development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or as documented in each jurisdictions capital facilities plan. To implement the goals of this Agreement, all jurisdictions shall adhere to the following requirements for the review of urban growth areas and amendments to the boundaries: a. Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Cycle Yakima County shall conduct a county -wide UGA review according to the schedules established in YCC Title 166.10.040 (5), or at a minimum the timeframes established under RCW 36.70A.130.. Cities may request amendments to UGA boundaries outside of the county -wide UGA review schedules listed above under the emergency amendment process allowed under RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). Emergency amendment requests must be made in writing to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and if accepted, the proposed amendment will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Page 5 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVe rsion_Mailedf orSig nature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 b. Population Allocations The baseline for the twenty-year County -wide population forecasts shall be based on the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management (OFM) 20 -year GMA population projections. The population forecasts will be allocated to the Cities and the unincorporated urban areas by Yakima County, as set forth in YCC 166.10.040 and the GMA. c. Buildable Lands Model (BLM) The BLM allows local jurisdictions to compare anticipated growth against actual development over time to determine if there is enough suitable land inside the UGA to accommodate the growth anticipated during the remaining portion of the 20 - year planning period and if jurisdictions are achieving their adopted urban densities inside urban growth areas. This process may be used by Yakima County if determined necessary. d. Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) The LCA is to establish an objective approach by which to determine the current supply of land and how much population and development each jurisdiction can expect to accommodate under current zoning and development regulations in the existing incorporated and unincorporated UGAs. Yakima County shall conduct the LCA, using the LCA methodology outlined in the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, YCC 16B.10.095 (2), the CWPPs and this Agreement. e. Capital Facilities Planning Cities must submit an adopted Capital Facilities Plan that includes any capital assets that are needed to accommodate future growth within the proposed or existing urban growth area as part of any UGA update process. To determine what is needed, the levels of service (LOS) standards for transportation facilities must be identified. LOS standards on other capital facilities are strongly encouraged. This should be consistent with the 20 -year planning horizon and the densities and distribution of growth identified during the UGA update process. This forecast must include those capital facilities required by RCW 36.70A that are planned to be provided within the planning period, including the general locations and anticipated capacity needed. The lack of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan Page 6 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_MailedforSig nature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 for any proposed expansion area or areas currently within an urban growth area indicates that the area is not ready for urban growth and that the proposal will be denied or the area will be removed from the UGA. 2. Amending Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts a. Future Land Use Designation Amendments Amendment requests to change future land use designations for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas will be accepted by the County during the scheduled biennial amendment cycle, set forth in YCC 166.10. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10 and this Agreement. Future land use designations and zoning for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas were developed as part of a coordinated effort between Yakima County and the cities during the county -wide UGA review process. Therefore, if a property owner requests a future land use designation amendment outside of the scheduled five year UGA review process Yakima County will notify the applicable city of the proposed amendment request for their recommendation. The city's recommendation will be forwarded to the Yakima County Planning Commission and to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners for consideration as part of the legislative amendment review process. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions outside of a scheduled county -wide UGA review process will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 166.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Amendments to future land use designation for property located within the unincorporated urban growth area, must refer to the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table to determine whether the desired plan designation is consistent with the plan designation as shown in the County Future Land Use Consistency Table. b. Zoning District Amendments Property owners wishing to rezone land within the unincorporated urban growth area to a different zoning district must show that the Page 7 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 rezone is consistent with the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table. Rezones that are contingent upon legislative approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment, as indicated in Table 19.36-1 shall be considered a major rezone and subject to the procedures and requirements set forth in subsection a. above, YCC 16B.10 and YCC 19.36. F. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE General Provisions for Capital Facilities Planning and Mapping - Consistency with GMA In accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(3) and WAC 365-196-415, the Cities and the County will develop Capital Facilities Plans that cover the entire UGA. Cities shall provide the County with a copy of their most current adopted Capital Facilities Plan at least six months prior to any scheduled UGA update process. Maps of City and County utilities and transportation infrastructure not contingent to a Capital Facilities Plan amendment will be provided to the County's GIS's Department when updated, which will maintain the regional GIS database, so as to be accessible to all parties. Opportunities for focused and targeted public investment, which directs capital improvement expenditures into specific geographic areas to produce "fully -serviced land" for development, will be encouraged. This strategy is intended to maximize the use of limited public funds by coordinating government expenditures and focusing development first in some areas, then in others. Selection of targeted investment corridors will consider and be consistent with regional priorities. Separate sub -agreements or interlocal agreements may be entered into by the affected parties to provide the details for the concepts of particular focused targeted public investment corridors. The following provisions apply to the review and permitting process for proposed developments in unincorporated portions of Urban Growth Areas: 1. Streets a. Responsibility Yakima County and cities will be responsible for assuring that all streets within the UGA are constructed concurrently with development and that the impacts generated by the development on the transportation facilities within both the unincorporated and incorporated UGA are properly considered and the appropriate mitigation is required. Page 8 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_MailedforSig nature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b. Design Standards Yakima County will utilize the provisions of Yakima County Code Title 19 as design standards for urban development of streets, and associated structures, unless otherwise specified in a sub -agreement. It is intended that County design standards will be generally consistent with standards adopted by the City; therefore the County may modify its required design standards when a City identifies the specific standards that may apply and demonstrates that applying the City's development standards are consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(3) and the applicable Capital Facilities Plan. c. Level of Service (LOS) Transportation Policy — LOS The establishment of level of service policies for streets within the urban growth area will be done cooperatively to assure that service level thresholds are agreed upon for all transportation facilities. This effort will be coordinated with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) pursuant to RCW 47.80.023. Performance Evaluation — LOS The Cities and the County will monitor and review transportation LOS policies and their effect in the urban growth area and make adjustments as mutually agreed upon. 2. Water a. Responsibility The Cities are the preferred provider of services within the Urban Growth Areas. Responsibility for the provision of water service by a water purveyor approved by Washington State Department of Health (DOH) will be depicted on a service area map. The service area map will be maintained by the County in the regional GIS database. Consistent with DOH regulations, the designated water purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of water service within the 20 -year planning horizon to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan. Page 9 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Water Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate water service to potential customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the developer. (3) Rates - Water rates are the responsibility of the purveyor. c. Standards Design and construction of water systems shall, at a minimum meet DOH regulations and guidelines and the purveyor's standards. The Cities shall submit to the County any specific standards which are to be applied within their respective UGA. 3. Sewer a. Responsibility Sewer service is expected to be provided by cities or sewer service providers approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) or the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within boundaries of the Yakama Nation,. Responsibility for the provision of sewer service will be depicted on a service area map in the regional GIS database maintained by the County in cooperation with the Cities and sewer service providers. Consistent with DOE, DOH and EPA regulations, the designated sewer purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of sewer service to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan within the 20 -year planning horizon. b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Sewer Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate sewer service to potential Page 10 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the provider. (3) Rates - Sewer rates are the responsibility of the provider. c. Standards The minimum design standards for design and construction of sewer facilities shall be those contained in the applicable city, DOE, DOH or EPA statutes and regulations or guidance documents. 4. Stormwater a. Responsibility The County will have responsibility for assuring that stormwater generated from development outside City limits will be handled in a manner consistent with standards outlined below. b. Financial and Service Policies Design and construction of stormwater collection, retention, conveyance, treatment and disposal systems will be the responsibility of the developer. It is current County policy to require on-site retention, treatment, and disposal of stormwater. Exceptions to this policy will only be allowed if off-site collection, treatment, and disposal services are available from a municipality, or other entity properly authorized to collect and dispose of such flows. c. Standards All stormwater shall be retained and disposed on-site according to processes and design(s) approved by the County unless an agreement with a public entity is in place for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of such flows. Page 11 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 G. ANNEXATION It is the intent of the parties to promote orderly and contiguous development of the City through annexation 1. Development Contiguous to City Boundaries — Annexation to be Promoted The County agrees that it will not provide utility services to properties within a city's UGA without the specific approval of the respective City, unless the property is in an existing utility service area of the County. It is the City's responsibility to provide utility service to properties within their respective UGA's within the 20 -year planning horizon. 2. Development Review Within Pending Annexation Areas a. Early Transfer of Authority It is the intent of the parties to facilitate timely processing of development applications for properties which are included within areas subject to active annexation proceedings. When a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation has been approved by the City and submitted to the Boundary Review Board, the city may in writing, request from the County transfer of authority to accept and review project permits prior to the effective date of annexation. b. County Review of Submitted Project Permits Complete project permit applications submitted to the County prior to the effective date of annexation will be processed and reviewed by the County to the review stage covered by the project permit application fee. "Review stage" is defined for subdivisions and short subdivisions to include preliminary plat approval, plat construction plan approval, inspection, or final plat processing. "Review stage" for all other land use permit applications includes preliminary approval, construction plan approval, construction inspections and final sign -off, but does not include related building permit applications unless a complete building permit application is submitted to the County prior to the effective date of the annexation. Page 12 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 (1) Vesting Any complete project permit application submitted to the County that has vested under statutory or common law shall be subject to the Yakima County laws and regulations in effect at the time the County deemed the project permit application complete. (2) Land Use Dedications, Deeds, or Conveyances Final plats or other dedications of public property will be transmitted to the City for City Council acceptance of dedication of right-of-way or public easements, if dedication occurs after the effective date of annexation. Dedications, deeds, or conveyances will be in the name of the City after the effective date of the annexation and will be forwarded to the City Council for acceptance by the City even if the County is continuing to process the permit application. (3) Appeals of Land use Permits The County agrees to be responsible for defending, all permits decisions issued by the county for complete project permit applications submitted prior to annexation. (4) Permit Renewal or Extension After the effective date of annexation, any request to renew a building permit or to renew or extend a land use permit issued by the County in the annexation area is to be made to and administered by the City. (5) Land use Code Enforcement Cases Any pending land use code enforcement cases in the annexation area will be transferred to the City on the effective date of the annexation. Any further action in those cases will be the responsibility of the City at the City's discretion. (6) Enforcement of County Conditions Following the effective date of the annexation, the City agrees to enforce any conditions imposed by the county Page 13 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_Mai I edf orSig nature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 (7) relating to the issuance of a building or land use permit in an area that has been annexed; to the same extent it enforces its own conditions. Financial Considerations/Revenue Adjustments and Transfers If the County intends to upgrade or replace infrastructure in a UGA, and such an investment would result in significant expense or indebtedness, then the County may seek a specific agreement with the other City to address the financial impacts of future annexation. Negotiations will provide for coordinated infrastructure development, appropriate allocation of costs and/or revenue sharing arrangements, and optimal leveraging of local funds to obtain available grants and loans. (8) Administration of Bonds Any performance, maintenance or other bond issued by the County to guarantee performance, maintenance or completion of work associated with the issuance of a permit will be administered by the County to completion. Any additional bonding required after annexation occurs will be determined, accepted and administered by the City along with responsibility for enforcement of conditions tied to said bonds. It shall be the City's responsibility to notify the County of the acceptance of said bonds in order for the County to release interest in any bonds the County may still hold. (9) Records Transfer The City may copy and/or transfer necessary County records, as appropriate, prior to and following annexation. The City may arrange for off-site duplication of records under appropriate safeguards for the protection of records as approved by the County. H. SUB -AGREEMENTS Sub -agreements that provide additional detail for implementing various aspects of this Agreement are anticipated, provided that the sub -agreements Page 14 of 18 G:\Long Range \Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSig nature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. Copies of sub - agreements shall be distributed to all parties to this Agreement. I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Relationship to Existing Laws and Statutes Except as specifically provided herein, the Cities and the County do not abrogate the decision-making authority vested in them by law. This Agreement in no way modifies or supersedes existing state laws and statutes. 2. Oversight The County -wide Planning Policy Committee, or its successor, shall be designated as responsible for overseeing implementation of this Agreement. 3. ILA Noncompliance The Cities and the County believe this ILA is in the best interests of the public and therefore will fully adhere to this ILA. In the event any party identifies an issue they believe is not consistent with this ILA the following process may be undertaken: a. The party shall give written notification within 30 days to the other parties of concern. In addition, the party shall give notice to all non -affected parties of this agreement. The affected parties shall document the nature of the dispute and their respective options for resolution, if the parties are not able to resolve the matter within 10 business days they shall seek mediation through the Dispute Resolution Center. b. If the disputing parties are still at an impasse, following mediation they shall seek resolution through the Yakima County Superior Court. c. If final resolution results in the need for amendments to the ILA, said amendments shall be processed in accordance with subsection (4) of this Agreement. The dispute resolution process identified above does not preclude any party with standing from filing an appeal with the Washington State Growth Management Hearing Board or LUPA court if applicable. Page 15 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedtorSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 4. Amendments to the ILA The Cities and the County recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections or to update the Agreement. Amendments not involving all parties shall be handled as sub -agreements as provided for in Section H, above. 5. Amendments to the CWPP The CWPPs have set a framework for comprehensive planning under GMA, but lack a process for amending the CWPPs and integrating the amendments into the comprehensive planning and implementation process. Since joint and cooperative planning will be accomplished through the provisions of the CWPPs it is important to provide for policy adjustments from time to time. The parties agree to the following process: a. Policy amendments shall be consistent with the framework and purpose of the CWPPs. b. Amendments require approval by 60% of the jurisdictions representing at least 51% of the County population prior to adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. c. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee will consider amendments to the CWPPs annually. The Committee should schedule review of these amendments six months in advance of the process for consideration of annual comprehensive plan changes. d. Proposed amendments will be provided to all Committee members at least four weeks prior to consideration by the Committee. e. Committee members are not expected to be able to commit their respective jurisdictions, but they are expected to fully represent the balance of concerns and views which may affect their jurisdiction's ability to approve the proposed amendments. f. Within 30 days of a decision by the Policy Committee, jurisdictions will be asked to indicate approval by signing the revised document. Page 16 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects \CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 6. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee The CWPPC shall hold a meeting each year to report on the progress of implementing the CWPPs and this Agreement. This meeting will provide an opportunity for jurisdictions to discuss planning and development related issues and suggest changes to this Agreement as necessary. Each City and the County will be responsible for maintaining its designated member. 7. Effective Date and Term of the ILA Agreement This Agreement shall be effective upon passage by the County and all of the Cities. The term of this Agreement shall be for five years from the effective date hereof and shall automatically be renewed for subsequent five year terms. No later than 180 days before the automatic renewal date, any party may notify the other parties in writing of a desire to revise the Agreement. 8. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement. III. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by each party to this Agreement as evidenced by signature pages affixed to this agreement. Page 17 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\Master Interlocal Agreement w 14 cities - 2015\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_Mailedf orSig natu re_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by Yakima County (Name of City/Town/County) J. R n5! Elliott, Chairman Boalid of Yakima County Commissioners Date: D CGe mb.cir f DO4i5 Attest: . By: P/ CJ S�J�- (City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the BoO d) Approved as to Form: By: /�< ( City Attorney/Caro ate Counsel) SEAL: age 18 of 18 G:1Long RangelProjects\CWPP\CWPPC20121CWPPC1ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by CITY OF GRANDVIEW (Name of City/Town/County) By: Titl MAYOR NORM CHILDRESS Date: 10/13/15 Attest:: By: Lej City Cleown Clerk/Clerk of the Board ANITA PALACIOS, CITY CLERK Approved as to Form: By: SEAL: City Attorney/ S orpor- e Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:\Uears\robinMppDatalLonallMicrosofmWindows\Temporary Internet Ftles\Content.Outtook113JXE0L1 ULA_(sIgned_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedtorSignature_Sept 2015.doc 6!1112016 1 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by SEAL: By: Title: Date: Attest: o -r (9-71-(14 ame of City/Town/County) M. By: .i.LYI //1 City Clerk/Town lerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 G:1Long RangelProjects\CWPPICWPPC20121CWPPCULA and comments \ILA_(signed_1999)_ proposed_changes_BOCC TC_Finaledits_10_19_l5.doc 10/20/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF -�- H This agreement has been executed by t ,o w rt Df a r ra h (Name of City/Town/County) SEAL: By: On..671Aex, 91/ANZIA-1 Title:? Date: &e - ) 2 7 2,01,5- Attest: 015 Attest: By: atat. 473-v6 City Clerkfiown CierkIClerk of the Board Page 18 of 18 C:1UsersVobinr1AppDataSLocallMicrosottlWindoweremporary Internet Foes\Content.Outiooklt3JXE0L111LA_(sIgned_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by City of Moxee (Name of CkyfTown/County) SEAL: By: cz7 Title: Mayor Date: +/ CIAA Attest: By: - - City ClerkiTown Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: City Attomey/Corporate Counsel ��C•`s'HE'I74 sem`mac?•4)) Am;'.. A • cogs. Egon . swam 04. Nrk j 1 Page 18 of 18 C:lUserslrobinrMppDatalLocal\MicrosoflWindowslTemporary Internet Files1Content Outlool\ISJXEOL111LA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersionMalledtorSIgnature Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF �� This agreement has been executed by . 1574.1? 47C iQcb (Name of City/Town/County) Title: m'4yyr Date: d&kI 12, it)/5— Attest: /5 Attest: By: Com.,: City Clerkfrown ClertdClerk of the Board App By: SEAL: as to Form: Attorney/Corporate • unsel Page 18 of 18 CAUserslrobinnAppData1LocalkMicrosoft\Windows1Temporary Internet FilessContentOutlook\IaJXEOL111LA (sbgned_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion MailedforSignatureSept 2015.doc 8/1112016 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by `Ike e (r6,4 (Name Ci own/Cou Attest: By:L `City Cle own s lerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to By: SEAL: Ci 'orney/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 O:ILong Range\Projects1CWPPICWPPC20121CWPPCVLA and comments\ULA_(signed_1999}_ proposed_changes_BOCC_TC_Finaledits_10_10_15.doc 10/20/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by I S>ti1)_) Name of City/T County) By: Title: it/ MaY19c r Date: 10 - Attest: By: City ler own Approved as to Form: By: SEAL: 1r' CITY CONTRACT NO: A -2-015 • 12 - RESOLUTION NO: Of A COUNCIL MTG: 10.21v • 2-015 City Attomey/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:IUserslrobinrWppDatalLocaMAicrosoft\Windowa\Temporary Internet FilessContenLOutlook1l JXE0L111LA (signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion MailedforSignature__SepL2015.doc 8/1112015 RECEIVED MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Yakima County Commissioners FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY OCT 1 8 2015 SIGNATURE PAGE 1st„_ 2nd The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by C -/v`- OP 774/A. (Name of ityfTown/County) By: ., Title: iTMr Date: i4 U D J5 Attest: By: AN - City' - own Clerk/Clerk Approved as to Form: By: SEAL: of and City AttomeylCorporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:\UserslrobinrAppData\Loal\MicrosofttWindows\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlookU3JXEOL1tLA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion MailedforSignature_Sept 2015.doc 8111/2015 3rd MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by C c 7"/ c f 7-0,,i tliSh (Name of City/Town/County) By: Title: C Al NVQ Date: tt9 12.015 Attest: By 4f,/e)IL7elL - Ci Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: CityAttorfiey/Corporate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 G:\Long RangelProjects1CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPCIILA end comments\LA_(signed_1099)_ proposed changes_BOCC_TC_Finaledits_10_19 15.doc 10/2012015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by SEAL: oi ihOn e of Cityfrown!County) By: Title: CL Mat, j -tr Date: k k - 3 t� Attest: By: City ' lerkfrown Clerk/Clerk ofoa Approved as to Form: By: City Attomey/Corporate Counsel Page 18of18 C:WserslrobinrMAppDatalLocallMicrosottlWindowalTemporery Internet Flles%ContentOutiook83JXE0LIULA_(signed 1999)_ FINALBOCCVerslon MailedtorSignature Sept 2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by X14 K (Nam of City/Town/County) By: Titl Date: ! - - /s_ Attest: 63By. ity ClerklTown Clerk/Clerk of the Board A d as to By: SEAL: City Attomey/Co orate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:\Userskobinr1AppDateSLocaI\Microsoft WindowslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook113JXEOL1511A_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2016 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The Legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by 8 Title: o4- a lc i of City own!Couniy) Date: \ \, Approved as to Form: By: SEAL: 0Jt, ney/Corporate Counsel crrr CONTRACT Nek RESOLut ICN NO: Page 18 of 18 CAUsershvWnnAppOatdLLoceniAtrosoRlWlndowetTemporary Internet FYN1ContentQdlodcU5JXEOL1 I A ,SsIped_1999j_ FINALBOCCVerslon_Maifedfor9ignature_3ept_2015.doc 9111/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by G 1* 0f Z1 i rLh ( erne of City(rown/County) Date: 11 — Attest: By: City Clerk(Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney ► • rate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 CAUseryWOinAAppData1LocalWicrosoMWindows4Tenrrmrary Internet Fiies\ContentOutloak%t3JXEOL111LA_(signed_1g99)_ FINAL8OCCVenVon Mailedfo $4gnature_Sept_2D15.doc 8111/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by CAI 6T MA Lftrvi (Name of City/Town/County) By: Title: 410 Aldr Date: t). - as - ao js Attest: ,, a By: \Y v►►�1.I Awatiiti (City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board) Appred as to Form: By: City Attotyfe /Corporate Counsel) SEAL: Page 18 of 18 C:Wserslwalt1AppData1Locaf itcrosott\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OuttooklJ241V528ULA_(sIgned_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSIgnature_Se pL2015.doc 8111/2015 BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT RESOLUTION 462-2015 IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY ) WHEREAS, growth planning in Yakima County requires the concerted and coordinated efforts of all governmental entities; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires Yakima County to adopt a county -wide planning policy in cooperation with the cities and towns; and, WHEREAS, in June 1993, and subsequently amended in October 2003, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners adopted the County -wide Planning Policies; and, WHEREAS, in 1999 the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and the legislative authority from each of the fourteen cities and towns adopted the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County (ILA); and, WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the ILA is to provide a management structure for growth and development occurring in Urban Growth Areas (UGA) to ensure that coordinated Growth Management Act (GMA) goals will be met; and, WHEREAS, in 2012, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners initiated amendments to the ILA and presented them to the County -wide Planning Policy Committee for review; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the ILA were necessary to ensure proper urban growth area development and coordination between Yakima County and each of the fourteen cities and towns; and, WHEREAS, after careful and deliberate review, Yakima County and each of the fourteen cities and towns have concluded their review of the proposed changes to the ILA; and, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners that the amendments, set forth in the attached Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation, and by this reference incorporated herein, is approved; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to execute said ILA. DONE this 29th day of December, 2015 .S Attest: Tiera L. Girard Clerk of the Board J. '+ Elliott, Chairman ichael D. Leita, Commissioner uchey, Commissioner Board of County Commissioners for Yakima County, Washington 2�m a Y' Y\ cpm° . YAK1 �1A i COLDfii7 OARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Michael D. Leita _ - - Kevin J. Bouchey District 1 District 2, J. Rand Elliott District 3 April 22, 2016 City of Yakima Attn Mayor Avina Gutierrez 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima WA 98901 Re: Master Interlocal Agreement Dear Mayor Gutierrez: RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA APR 2 2 2016 o 'ICE (17 'CItY CouNClt_ Attached for your records is a copy of the fully executed Master.Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation signed by Yakima County and the Cities"of Grandview, Granger, Harrah, Mabton, Moxee, Naches, Selah, 'Sunnyside, Tieton, Toppenish, Union Gap,'Wapato, Yakima and Zillah. Thank you for your support of the agreement. Sincerely, Tiera L. Girard, Clerk of the Board ,128 North Second Street [Room #232 1 Yakima, WA 98901 I -509-574-.1'500: 1 www.yakimacounty.us/cmrs Return Address: Yakima County Commissioners 128 N 2"d St Room 232 Yakima WA 98901 Title: 11111111 19 2a FILE# 7904252 YAKIMA COUNTY, WA 03/31/2016 12:09:43PM AGREEMENT PAGES: 33 YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Recording Fee: 0.00 Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation Grantor: Grantees: Yakima County 128 North 2"d St Yakima WA 98901 Cities of Grandview, Granger, Harrah, Mabton, Moxee, Naches, Selah, Sunnyside, Tieton, Toppenish, Union Gap, Wapato, Yakima and Zillah MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREAMBLE A. Purpose 1 B. Background 2 II. AGREEMENT A. Parties to Agreement 3 B. Authority 3 C. Objectives 3 D. Cooperative Planning System 4 E. Planning Implementation 5 F. Infrastructure Services and Level of Service 8 G. Annexation 12 H. Sub -Agreements 14 I. General Provisions 15 III. SIGNATURES I. PREAMBLE A. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this Agreement is to provide a management structure for growth and development occurring in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to ensure that coordinated Growth Management Act (GMA) goals will be met. In areas that are outside of city limits but within the UGA, the County continues to have legal jurisdiction but both the County and respective City have interests. The purpose of UGA designation is to target these areas for urban growth and urban levels of services, and eventual annexation or incorporation. Consequently, the County and cities' must have coordinated visions for urban density land use in these areas with appropriate development standards to assure consistency with the GMA. This Agreement is intended to meet the objectives of the GMA, set out processes for coordination of planning, provide public improvements, and to clarify Page 1 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVe rsion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 administrative and development processes for citizens, the Cities and the County. B. BACKGROUND Outlined below are statute, regulation, and agreements that provide the framework for this Agreement. 1. Growth Management Act The enactment of GMA by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 fundamentally changed the way comprehensive land use planning is carried out in the state. The GMA requires that counties and cities update their comprehensive land use plans consistent with statewide goals and to coordinate their planning efforts with each other. 2. County -wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) To assure that this coordination is carried out, the 1991 Legislature passed companion legislation (RCW 36.70A.210) requiring counties and cities to coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans through a set of mutually developed CWPPs. Following review and recommendation by the Cities, the CWPPs were adopted by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners in June 1993 and updated in 2003. This agreement implements the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies (CWPP) as adopted by Yakima County and its cities. 3. Urban Growth Areas The GMA states that urban growth should first be located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. [RCW 36.70A.110(3)] Therefore, the CWPPs include specific policies to encourage growth in UGAs and discourage urban growth outside of these areas. Also, these policies strive for development within UGAs in a logical fashion outward from the edge of developed land in conjunction with the provision of infrastructure and urban services. Page 2 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 4. Provision of Services within UGAs The GMA recognizes that, in general, the Cities are the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. RCW 36.70A.110(4). This preference does not preclude provision of services by other providers, but suggests if all factors were equal in an evaluation of potential service, the City is the preferred provider of urban governmental services. II. AGREEMENT A. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into individually between Yakima County (hereinafter referred to as the "County") and each of the following municipalities: the Cities of Grandview, Granger, Mabton, Moxee, Selah, Sunnyside, Tieton, Toppenish, Union Gap, Wapato, Yakima and Zillah, the Towns of Harrah and Naches (hereinafter referred to as the "City" or "Cities"). B. AUTHORITY This Agreement constitutes an exercise of authority granted to the Cities and the County under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and Chapter 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. Copies of this Agreement and any sub -agreements shall be filed by Yakima County with the Yakima County Auditor and the Washington State Department of Commerce. C. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this Agreement are: 1. To implement the provisions of GMA and the CWPPs, including facilitation of urban growth within UGAs, while maintaining consistency with the County's and City's comprehensive plan. 2. To assure allowable growth and development within UGAs is clearly understood by the Cities, the County, other service providers and citizens in these areas. 3. To assure that the policies and procedures leading to such development are clearly defined. 4. To define responsibility for the provision of urban services and the level of service to be provided. 5. To assure communication among the Cities, the County and citizens as planning, growth, and development decisions are made. Page 3 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CW PPC\ILA and comments\I LA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCV a rsion_MailedforSig nature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 6. To use decision-making processes that are consistent with the County's and City's responsibilities, and which consider the long term objectives, plans and development standards of the Cities. 7. To provide for common and joint processes of the Cities and the County to foster overall operational partnership, efficiency, and unified policy and direction. 8. To assure that public participation processes targeting property owners and residents of affected UGAs areas are undertaken as this Agreement is implemented. 9. To encourage economic development with a balanced application of the goals, policies, and strategies of the various comprehensive plans. 10. To establish the protocols and responsibilities for developing and maintaining the common system for data collection and analysis. D. COOPERATIVE PLANNING SYSTEM 1. UGA Boundaries The record of official UGA boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act shall be maintained as a part of the future land use map in the County's adopted comprehensive plan. Copies of the official UGA boundary shall be provided to the City. Cities shall notify the County of any disparities. The County adopts UGA boundaries consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, CWPPs, YCC Title 16B.10 and this Agreement. 2. Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations To ensure consistency between future land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas not covered by adopted subarea plans, the County will adopt common future land use designations for those properties and zone them accordingly. The plan designations and zoning within these areas will be determined in a coordinated effort between the County and each city as part of the scheduled County -wide UGA updates process, set forth in YCC Title 16B.10 and this Agreement. The County will ensure that land use designations and zoning for property within unincorporated urban growth areas covered under an adopted subarea plan are consistent with the applicable subarea plan. Page 4 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F I NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 The Cities may provide the County with pre -zoning map(s) during the County -wide UGA update process depicting the City's preferred zoning for the unincorporated portions of their respective UGA. Said pre - zoning shall be consistent with comprehensive plan land use designations. When utilized, the pre -zoning map shall serve as an indication of the City's intentions with respect to land uses in the area upon annexation, and shall be considered by the County when making revisions. E. PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION Since UGAs are intended to accommodate urban growth and eventually be part of cities, a mechanism is needed to assure that planning and permitting decisions of the County are generally consistent with the planning objectives and development standards of the Cities. 1. Amending Urban Growth Boundaries Urban Growth Areas are intended to implement the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), CWPPs and the planning and land use objectives of adopted comprehensive plans by encouraging development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or as documented in each jurisdictions capital facilities plan. To implement the goals of this Agreement, all jurisdictions shall adhere to the following requirements for the review of urban growth areas and amendments to the boundaries: a. Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Cycle Yakima County shall conduct a county -wide UGA review according to the schedules established in YCC Title 166.10.040 (5), or at a minimum the timeframes established under RCW 36.70A.130.. Cities may request amendments to UGA boundaries outside of the county -wide UGA review schedules listed above under the emergency amendment process allowed under RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). Emergency amendment requests must be made in writing to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and if accepted, the proposed amendment will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 16B.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Page 5 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b. Population Allocations The baseline for the twenty-year County -wide population forecasts shall be based on the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management (OFM) 20 -year GMA population projections. The population forecasts will be allocated to the Cities and the unincorporated urban areas by Yakima County, as set forth in YCC 16B.10.040 and the GMA. c. Buildable Lands Model (BLM) The BLM allows local jurisdictions to compare anticipated growth against actual development over time to determine if there is enough suitable land inside the UGA to accommodate the growth anticipated during the remaining portion of the 20 - year planning period and if jurisdictions are achieving their adopted urban densities inside urban growth areas. This process may be used by Yakima County if determined necessary. d. Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) The LCA is to establish an objective approach by which to determine the current supply of land and how much population and development each jurisdiction can expect to accommodate under current zoning and development regulations in the existing incorporated and unincorporated UGAs. Yakima County shall conduct the LCA, using the LCA methodology outlined in the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, YCC 16B.10.095 (2), the CWPPs and this Agreement. e. Capital Facilities Planning Cities must submit an adopted Capital Facilities Plan that includes any capital assets that are needed to accommodate future growth within the proposed or existing urban growth area as part of any UGA update process. To determine what is needed, the levels of service (LOS) standards for transportation facilities must be identified. LOS standards on other capital facilities are strongly encouraged. This should be consistent with the 20 -year planning horizon and the densities and distribution of growth identified during the UGA update process. This forecast must include those capital facilities required by RCW 36.70A that are planned to be provided within the planning period, including the general locations and anticipated capacity needed. The lack of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan Page 6 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CW PP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforS ignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 for any proposed expansion area or areas currently within an urban growth area indicates that the area is not ready for urban growth and that the proposal will be denied or the area will be removed from the UGA. 2. Amending Urban Growth Area Future Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts a. Future Land Use Designation Amendments Amendment requests to change future land use designations for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas will be accepted by the County during the scheduled biennial amendment cycle, set forth in YCC 166.10. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 16B.10 and this Agreement. Future land use designations and zoning for properties located within unincorporated urban growth areas were developed as part of a coordinated effort between Yakima County and the cities during the county -wide UGA review process. Therefore, if a property owner requests a future land use designation amendment outside of the scheduled five year UGA review process Yakima County will notify the applicable city of the proposed amendment request for their recommendation. The city's recommendation will be forwarded to the Yakima County Planning Commission and to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners for consideration as part of the legislative amendment review process. Amendment requests by property owners and/or jurisdictions outside of a scheduled county -wide UGA review process will be evaluated based on the criteria and requirements under YCC 168.10, this Agreement and the most recent LCA information and population allocations used by the County during the most recent UGA review process. Amendments to future land use designation for property located within the unincorporated urban growth area, must refer to the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table to determine whether the desired plan designation is consistent with the plan designation as shown in the County Future Land Use Consistency Table. b. Zoning District Amendments Property owners wishing to rezone land within the unincorporated urban growth area to a different zoning district must show that the Page 7 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 rezone is consistent with the applicable County Future Land Use/Zoning Consistency Table. Rezones that are contingent upon legislative approval of a comprehensive plan map amendment, as indicated in Table 19.36-1 shall be considered a major rezone and subject to the procedures and requirements set forth in subsection a. above, YCC 166.10 and YCC 19.36. F. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE General Provisions for Capital Facilities Planning and Mapping - Consistency with GMA In accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(3) and WAC 365-196-415, the Cities and the County will develop Capital Facilities Plans that cover the entire UGA. Cities shall provide the County with a copy of their most current adopted Capital Facilities Plan at least six months prior to any scheduled UGA update process. Maps of City and County utilities and transportation infrastructure not contingent to a Capital Facilities Plan amendment will be provided to the County's GIS's Department when updated, which will maintain the regional GIS database, so as to be accessible to all parties. Opportunities for focused and targeted public investment, which directs capital improvement expenditures into specific geographic areas to produce "fully -serviced land" for development, will be encouraged. This strategy is intended to maximize the use of limited public funds by coordinating government expenditures and focusing development first in some areas, then in others. Selection of targeted investment corridors will consider and be consistent with regional priorities. Separate sub -agreements or interlocal agreements may be entered into by the affected parties to provide the details for the concepts of particular focused targeted public investment corridors. The following provisions apply to the review and permitting process for proposed developments in unincorporated portions of Urban Growth Areas: 1. Streets a. Responsibility Yakima County and cities will be responsible for assuring that all streets within the UGA are constructed concurrently with development and that the impacts generated by the development on the transportation facilities within both the unincorporated and incorporated UGA are properly considered and the appropriate mitigation is required. Page 8 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCV ersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b. Design Standards Yakima County will utilize the provisions of Yakima County Code Title 19 as design standards for urban development of streets, and associated structures, unless otherwise specified in a sub -agreement. It is intended that County design standards will be generally consistent with standards adopted by the City; therefore the County may modify its required design standards when a City identifies the specific standards that may apply and demonstrates that applying the City's development standards are consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(3) and the applicable Capital Facilities Plan. c. Level of Service (LOS) Transportation Policy — LOS The establishment of level of service policies for streets within the urban growth area will be done cooperatively to assure that service level thresholds are agreed upon for all transportation facilities. This effort will be coordinated with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) pursuant to RCW 47.80.023. Performance Evaluation — LOS The Cities and the County will monitor and review transportation LOS policies and their effect in the urban growth area and make adjustments as mutually agreed upon. 2. Water a. Responsibility The Cities are the preferred provider of services within the Urban Growth Areas. Responsibility for the provision of water service by a water purveyor approved by Washington State Department of Health (DOH) will be depicted on a service area map. The service area map will be maintained by the County in the regional GIS database. Consistent with DOH regulations, the designated water purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of water service within the 20 -year planning horizon to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan. Page 9 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CW PPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Water Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate water service to potential customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the developer. (3) Rates - Water rates are the responsibility of the purveyor. c. Standards Design and construction of water systems shall, at a minimum meet DOH regulations and guidelines and the purveyor's standards. The Cities shall submit to the County any specific standards which are to be applied within their respective UGA. 3. Sewer a. Responsibility Sewer service is expected to be provided by cities or sewer service providers approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) or the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within boundaries of the Yakama Nation,. Responsibility for the provision of sewer service will be depicted on a service area map in the regional GIS database maintained by the County in cooperation with the Cities and sewer service providers. Consistent with DOE, DOH and EPA regulations, the designated sewer purveyor shall be responsible for planning and development of sewer service to meet the level of service standards for the land uses and populations indicated in the most recent comprehensive plan within the 20 -year planning horizon. b. Financial and Service Policies (1) Sewer Service — It is the intent of all parties to this Agreement to require adequate sewer service to potential Page 10 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CW PPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 customers within the UGA consistent with the capital facilities plans. (2) Costs - The costs of system extension will be as enumerated in the capital facilities plan. This does not preclude programmed extensions undertaken at the initiative of the provider. (3) Rates - Sewer rates are the responsibility of the provider. c. Standards The minimum design standards for design and construction of sewer facilities shall be those contained in the applicable city, DOE, DOH or EPA statutes and regulations or guidance documents. 4. Stormwater a. Responsibility The County will have responsibility for assuring that stormwater generated from development outside City limits will be handled in a manner consistent with standards outlined below. b. Financial and Service Policies Design and construction of stormwater collection, retention, conveyance, treatment and disposal systems will be the responsibility of the developer. It is current County policy to require on-site retention, treatment, and disposal of stormwater. Exceptions to this policy will only be allowed if off-site collection, treatment, and disposal services are available from a municipality, or other entity properly authorized to collect and dispose of such flows. c. Standards All stormwater shall be retained and disposed on-site according to processes and design(s) approved by the County unless an agreement with a public entity is in place for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of such flows. Page 11 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 G. ANNEXATION It is the intent of the parties to promote orderly and contiguous development of the City through annexation 1. Development Contiguous to City Boundaries — Annexation to be Promoted The County agrees that it will not provide utility services to properties within a city's UGA without the specific approval of the respective City, unless the property is in an existing utility service area of the County. It is the City's responsibility to provide utility service to properties within their respective UGA's within the 20 -year planning horizon. 2. Development Review Within Pending Annexation Areas a. Early Transfer of Authority It is the intent of the parties to facilitate timely processing of development applications for properties which are included within areas subject to active annexation proceedings. When a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation has been approved by the City and submitted to the Boundary Review Board, the city may in writing, request from the County transfer of authority to accept and review project permits prior to the effective date of annexation. b. County Review of Submitted Project Permits Complete project permit applications submitted to the County prior to the effective date of annexation will be processed and reviewed by the County to the review stage covered by the project permit application fee. "Review stage" is defined for subdivisions and short subdivisions to include preliminary plat approval, plat construction plan approval, inspection, or final plat processing. "Review stage" for all other land use permit applications includes preliminary approval, construction plan approval, construction inspections and final sign -off, but does not include related building permit applications unless a complete building permit application is submitted to the County prior to the effective date of the annexation. Page 12 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 (1) Vesting Any complete project permit application submitted to the County that has vested under statutory or common law shall be subject to the Yakima County laws and regulations in effect at the time the County deemed the project permit application complete. (2) Land Use Dedications, Deeds, or Conveyances (3) Final plats or other dedications of public property will be transmitted to the City for City Council acceptance of dedication of right-of-way or public easements, if dedication occurs after the effective date of annexation. Dedications, deeds, or conveyances will be in the name of the City after the effective date of the annexation and will be forwarded to the City Council for acceptance by the City even if the County is continuing to process the permit application. Appeals of Land use Permits The County agrees to be responsible for defending, all permits decisions issued by the county for complete project permit applications submitted prior to annexation. (4) Permit Renewal or Extension (5) After the effective date of annexation, any request to renew a building permit or to renew or extend a land use permit issued by the County in the annexation area is to be made to and administered by the City. Land use Code Enforcement Cases Any pending land use code enforcement cases in the annexation area will be transferred to the City on the effective date of the annexation. Any further action in those cases will be the responsibility of the City at the City's discretion. (6) Enforcement of County Conditions Following the effective date of the annexation, the City agrees to enforce any conditions imposed by the county Page 13 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_Mailedf orSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 (7) relating to the issuance of a building or land use permit in an area that has been annexed; to the same extent it enforces its own conditions. Financial Considerations/Revenue Adjustments and Transfers If the County intends to upgrade or replace infrastructure in a UGA, and such an investment would result in significant expense or indebtedness, then the County may seek a specific agreement with the other City to address the financial impacts of future annexation. Negotiations will provide for coordinated infrastructure development, appropriate allocation of costs and/or revenue sharing arrangements, and optimal leveraging of local funds to obtain available grants and loans. (8) Administration of Bonds (9) Any performance, maintenance or other bond issued by the County to guarantee performance, maintenance or completion of work associated with the issuance of a permit will be administered by the County to completion. Any additional bonding required after annexation occurs will be determined, accepted and administered by the City along with responsibility for enforcement of conditions tied to said bonds. It shall be the City's responsibility to notify the County of the acceptance of said bonds in order for the County to release interest in any bonds the County may still hold. Records Transfer The City may copy and/or transfer necessary County records, as appropriate, prior to and following annexation. The City may arrange for off-site duplication of records under appropriate safeguards for the protection of records as approved by the County. H. SUB -AGREEMENTS Sub -agreements that provide additional detail for implementing various aspects of this Agreement are anticipated, provided that the sub -agreements Page 14 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVe rsion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. Copies of sub - agreements shall be distributed to all parties to this Agreement. I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Relationship to Existing Laws and Statutes Except as specifically provided herein, the Cities and the County do not abrogate the decision-making authority vested in them by law. This Agreement in no way modifies or supersedes existing state laws and statutes. 2. Oversight The County -wide Planning Policy Committee, or its successor, shall be designated as responsible for overseeing implementation of this Agreement. 3. ILA Noncompliance The Cities and the County believe this ILA is in the best interests of the public and therefore will fully adhere to this ILA. In the event any party identifies an issue they believe is not consistent with this ILA the following process may be undertaken: a. The party shall give written notification within 30 days to the other parties of concern. In addition, the party shall give notice to all non -affected parties of this agreement. The affected parties shall document the nature of the dispute and their respective options for resolution, if the parties are not able to resolve the matter within 10 business days they shall seek mediation through the Dispute Resolution Center. b. If the disputing parties are still at an impasse, following mediation they shall seek resolution through the Yakima County Superior Court. c. If final resolution results in the need for amendments to the ILA, said amendments shall be processed in accordance with subsection (4) of this Agreement. The dispute resolution process identified above does not preclude any party with standing from filing an appeal with the Washington State Growth Management Hearing Board or LUPA court if applicable. Page 15 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 4. Amendments to the ILA The Cities and the County recognize that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary to clarify the requirements of particular sections or to update the Agreement. Amendments not involving all parties shall be handled as sub -agreements as provided for in Section H, above. 5. Amendments to the CWPP The CWPPs have set a framework for comprehensive planning under GMA, but lack a process for amending the CWPPs and integrating the amendments into the comprehensive planning and implementation process. Since joint and cooperative planning will be accomplished through the provisions of the CWPPs it is important to provide for policy adjustments from time to time. The parties agree to the following process: a. Policy amendments shall be consistent with the framework and purpose of the CWPPs. b. Amendments require approval by 60% of the jurisdictions representing at least 51% of the County population prior to adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. c. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee will consider amendments to the CWPPs annually. The Committee should schedule review of these amendments six months in advance of the process for consideration of annual comprehensive plan changes. d. Proposed amendments will be provided to all Committee members at least four weeks prior to consideration by the Committee. e. Committee members are not expected to be able to commit their respective jurisdictions, but they are expected to fully represent the balance of concerns and views which may affect their jurisdiction's ability to approve the proposed amendments. Within 30 days of a decision by the Policy Committee, jurisdictions will be asked to indicate approval by signing the revised document. Page 16 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 6. The County -wide Planning Policy Committee The CWPPC shall hold a meeting each year to report on the progress of implementing the CWPPs and this Agreement. This meeting will provide an opportunity for jurisdictions to discuss planning and development related issues and suggest changes to this Agreement as necessary. Each City and the County will be responsible for maintaining its designated member. 7. Effective Date and Term of the ILA Agreement This Agreement shall be effective upon passage by the County and all of the Cities. The term of this Agreement shall be for five years from the effective date hereof and shall automatically be renewed for subsequent five year terms. No later than 180 days before the automatic renewal date, any party may notify the other parties in writing of a desire to revise the Agreement. 8. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement. III. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by each party to this Agreement as evidenced by signature pages affixed to this agreement. Page 17 of 18 G:\long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by Yakima County (Name of City/Town/County) J. R.n Elliott, Chairman Boa of Yakima County Commissioners Date: 17tc'Crrt>e r 1( api5 Attest By: (City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Boa -td) Approved as to Form: By: (City Attorney/Corpo ate Counsel) SEAL: Page 18 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVe rsion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by CITY OF GRANDVIEW (Name of City/Town/County) By: Titl Date: GG MAYOR NORM CHILDRESS 10/13/15 By: .f City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board ANITA PALACIOS, CITY CLERK Approved as to Form: City Attorney/I orpor• e Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F I NALBOCCVersion_MailedforS ignature_Sept_2015. doc W11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by -' SEAL:: By: Title: Date: Attest: By: Mc,k o ID . (Ja) City Clerk/Town erk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ proposed_changes_BOCC_TC_Fi n al ed i ts_10_19_15. d oc 10/20/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by 1 ,-t- O v 1-7 H a r ra h (Name of City/Town/County) SEAL: By: art„LA.0_, Title: 'y1 Date: ac:- ) c2D 15 Attest: By: City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved 't orm: Ity Attorney/CorporatConsel Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinrWppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by City of Moxee (Name of City/Town/County) SEAL: By: Title: Mayor Date: 0//,01 % /S_ Attest: By: : -cdZ4-- k% City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney/Corporate Counsel 11Nl ij1� HE/ d,/,,. • • e so 'IO .,.� ay comm. Evitee • 03126/2018 .Z— a • • oF ,4J!f111N0 Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FI NAL BOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by /Odcg' Q7c /2QCke6 BY:. �c-- (V` -- Title: /Z1ayDi--- (Name of City/Town/County) Date: Qe,44k 4 /Z, .zv/S— Attest: BY: C��.►-- Appr By: SEAL: City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board as to Form: ity Attorney/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOLI\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF // //�� This agreement has been executed by `1 6 `� Se l G -t (Name c CCi )Town/County Attest:. By: City Cler .•'own tlerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to By: City A •rney/Corporate Counsel Page 18 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ proposed_ch a ng es_BOCC_TC_F i n a led its_ 10_19_15.d oc 10/20/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF ,, This agreement has been executed by e I (1-1r - Sltnnf ldP� Name of City/Tq/County) By: -� Title: CIty Mafia. c Date: I 0 g:1 ' I5 Attest: By: City ler own Approved as to Form: CITY CONTRACT NO: A ' 20'.12 - RESOLUTION NO: N / A COUNCIL MTG: 10.210. 2-01S By: City Attorney/Corporate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinnAppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1 \ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 RECEIVED MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Yakima County Commissioners FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY OCT 1 n SIGNATURE PAGE 1r -7f_ 2nd The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by 77-e. � � By: �L Title: A!% Date: 4-1 (Name of 1ity/Town/County) 00,/,' Attest: Approved as to Form: By:-02),1(nQ City Attorney/Corporate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 C \Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F I NALB OC C Version_MailedforSig natu re_Sept_2015. doc 8/11/2015 3rd MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by C c 7`-e TeP,cw<S// (Name of City/Town/County) By: mit '1 Title: (Ai VVYAA =t* Date: It /9 12.015 Attest: \ �j Ci y Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: ld,t l City Attor iey/Corporate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 G:\Long Range\Projects\CWPP\CWPPC2012\CWPPC\ILA and comments\ILA_(signed_1999)_ proposed_changes_BOCC_TC_Finaledits_10_19_15.doc 10/20/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by By: Title: CA L-1 Mays_ tr Date: k 1 (!ryl me of City/Town/County) Attest: By: A AL. •L4 City Ierk/Town Clerk/Clerk oft :oar• Approved as to Form: By: City Attomey/Corporate Counsel SEAL: Page 18 of 18 C:\UserslrobinnAppData\Local1Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\I3JXE0L1ULA_(signed_1999)_ FI NAL B OC C Versio n_Ma Il edforS ig natu re_Sept_2015. d oc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by CI (7/73 (Nam of City/Town/County) Titles_ .� By: Date: /,1 - ) _ls. Attest: By: A By: City ClerklTown Clerk/Clerk of the Board ed as to SEAL: City Attorney/Cor orate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C•\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1 \ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by SEAL: _1 of 0 l(t it/Let- (Na e of City own/County) Date: \,\ ‘1?-, kt 3 Attest: By: ity Clerk/Town CI-rk/Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: By: (1/?"-, rney/Corporate Counsel CITY CONTRACT NO:''42/5--a2ila RESOLUTION NO. R_ c21/5--.13,7 Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOLI \ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINALBOCCVersion_MailedforSignature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by SEAL: Cifof 211..1 ( ame of City/Town/County) Date: Attest: By: eJLBr, / City ClerklTown Clerk/Clerk of the Board ApproveddJ as to Form: By:.l� City Attorney/• • ..rate Counsel Page 18 of 18 C:1Users1robinr\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\I3JXEOL1\ILA_(signed_1999)_ FINAL BOCCVersion_MailedforSignature Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015 MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN YAKIMA COUNTY SIGNATURE PAGE The legislative body of the undersigned jurisdiction has authorized execution of the Master Interlocal Agreement for Growth Management Act Implementation in Yakima County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed by By: Title: 4 Air Pi) 410V (Name of City/Town/County) Date: IS" Attest: A n By: Y"CIti✓ (City Clerk/Town Clerk/Clerk of the Board) Apprpved as to Form: By: )y " Cc --SZ City Attorr{e,//Corporate Counsel) SEAL: Page 18 of 18 C:\Users\walt\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\J241V526\ILA_(signed_1999)_ F INALBOCCVe rsion_MailedforSig nature_Sept_2015.doc 8/11/2015