Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/10/2005 pORTANGELES City COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 10, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING: ._1~l__~__~[.~ · II. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Headrick Couneilmember Braun Couneilmember Efickson Councilmember Munro Councilmember Pittis Councilmember Rogers Councilmember Williams Staff Present: Other Staff Present: Attorney Bloor Clerk Upton G. Cutler M. Madsen D. McKeen T. Riepe Y. Ziomkowski Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: WASHINGTON, U.S.A. CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2005 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MIKE QUINN MARK MADSEN WILLIAM ]~LOOR SUBJECT: MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Summary: The City Council and County Commissioners will conduct aj oint meeting on October 10th at 8:3 0 AM. The direction for the meeting is to concentrate on the sewer project to the EUGA. The two key issues are agreement to move the sewer prqiect forward and agreement on a plan for annexation of the EUGA. The County Commissioners may raise other topics, such as the use of the right-of-way on Kacee Way and the details ora proposed revenue-sharing agreement. We have not prepared all the issues for those discussions. They should be deferred to a future date. Recommendation: Support the extension of sewer to the EUGA with the County as aj oint project. The County should fund the construction. The City will manage the construction and agree to treat the wastewater. Agree to a phased planned for future annexations in the EUGA. Agree that revenue-sharing proposals and Kacee Way questions can and will be worked on in the future. Background/Analysis: The City staffhas reached an agreement with the County staffthat will allow extension of sewer to the City's EUGA. The essential elements are that the City will agree to a plan for phased annexation and the County will fund construction of the sewer extension. This represents a departure from previous positions, and is a compromise acceptable to both the city and the county, at least at the staff level. The following section recounts briefly the prior positions taken and the changes that occurred. It is for background - a description of how we arrived where we are today. L Annexation:, The County proposed that annexation transition west-to-east, similar to the agreemem for the Vv~GGA. For the County, agreement on Lh. is issue is essential to proceed with the EUGA sewer project. The main concern here was defining the process and the threshold for expanding the annexations. Both City and County recognize that, over time, the EUGA will annex into the City, and that it is consistent with GMA to do so. For the City, any agreement that requires phased annexation is a compromise. Under the state GMA law, UGAs are established for annexation. So, them is an issue about how to set the phases for annexation. Rules that are too strict will effectively eliminate the opportunity for annexation. The County also proposed that no annexations take place until 2015, probably as a response to protect their revenue base, and appease the anti-annexation folks in the UGA. The Cityhas not been opposed to such a moratorium, but we should have some provision to allow minor annexations for economic development and health reasons. 2. Sewer: There has been no disagreement with the fundamental concept that extension of the sewer into the EUGA is essential for economic development and environmental benefits. However, the complications and differences in the revenue-sharing proposals have largely been driven by the uncertainty of financing options for this sewer infrastructure. Prior proposals were based upon the premise that incremental revenue 15om the UGA would finance the capital infrastructure. Thus, the Citypushed for maximizing those resources for infrastructure. The County had different ideas, and that placed the focus revenue-sharing. If the County will now fund and bond the capital construction, then the revenue-sharing difficulties can be reduced significantly. 3. Revenue-Sharing: Attached a one-page memo outlining the major differences between the City's proposal and the County's. Since then, the County has modified its proposal to raise the percentage contribution from sales tax generated to 25% for capital infrastructure. This is an increase from 10% in the prior draft, so we have at least gained some sustainable revenue for capital debt service besides the Opportunity Fund. In general, the two proposals differ because of the basis from which they originated: County Viewpoint - The County views revenue-sharing as an appeasement and offering to the City to discourage City appetite for future annexation of the UGA. Their interest was, and to a large degree still is, to preserve a revenue base for their general governmental functions, especially in the rural areas of the County with less ability to generate supporting revenue. They recognize that development also grows revenue. City Viewpoint - The City viewed revenue-sharing as a means to provide a baseline revenue protection only for the County that would decrease over time as the City needed the revenues to provide the higher urban standard of services expected in the area once annexation occurs. The real need was to finance infrastructure to support development, and that this burden should not fall on existing City residents - Thus the push for a broader incremental tax base to be dedicated to capital improvements and debt service. Obviously, the potential of County financing the sewer changes tbJs original premise substantially. PRINCIPLES FOR DEX, TELOPMENT IN THE PORT ANGELES URBAN GROWTH AREAS Staff recommends the Council consider the following to be guiding principles for future development in the City's UGAs: 1. The City and the County both have a duty to ensure consistency with the GMA. 2. The City and the County both have a duty to ensure concurrency of the extension of urban services in the UGA with new development in the UGA. 3. The City and the County both have a duty to encourage annexation of lands within UGAs. 4. The City and the County both have a duty to work together diligently to develop an annexation plan consistent with the GMA. 5. Urban growth that requires extension of sewer or water facilities shall not be allowed within the Port Angeles UGA until an annexation plan is made. 6. The City and the County both have a duty to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 7. The City and the County both have a duty to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use. 8. It is in the public interest and welfare that large developments - developments involving more than 4,000 square feet in buildings, and facilities- improvements should occur within urban growth areas. 9. The City and the County both have a duty to ensure that large developments - developments involving more than 4,000 square feet in buildings, and facilities- improvements should occur within urban growth areas. 10. The City and the County both have a duty to support and strengthen laws to protect water quality and to control sources of non-point pollution. 11. The Eastern UGA is not served by sanitary sewer and is known for failing or poorly functioning on-site septic systems leading to non-point pollution. Allowing large developments in the eastern UGA increases the potential for additional non-point pollution. 12. The City and the County both have a duty to ensure public sanitary sewer service should be provided within urban growth areas. 13. The City and the County both have a duty to work together to provide public sanitary sewer service in urban growth areas. 14. All large developments in the UGA must connect to the City's sewer system. 15, Unless developers agree to connect to urban services (specifically public sanitary sewer) large developments in the UGA should not be permitted. 16. The City of Port Angeles will vigorously oppose any large development proposals in the UGA that do not include a requirement to connect to the City's sewer system. CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR THE EUGA 1. Annexation: Similar to the agreement for the WUGA, the County has proposed that annexation be in logical phases west to east. The main concern here is defining the process and the tln'eshold for expanding the annexations zones. At the staff level, the county has agreed that eventually the City will annex the EUGA, and that it is consistent with GMA to do so. The City agrees with the concept of some phased annexation process. However, City staffrecommends a more sophisticated approach than was applied in the WUGA. Rather than completely annex all of one zone before proceeding to the next, we recommend a percentage qualification. Additionally, some zones are identified in the EUGA that are not subject to the west-to-east progression. These zones are intended to recognize that property owners in distinct neighborhoods have a right to request or resist annexation and should make that choice in their own time. A descr/ption of the annexation plan is attached. The County may also proposed that no annexations take place until 2015 or some future date, probably to appease the anti-annexation folks in the UGA. Staff is not opposed to such a moratorium, but it should have some language to allow minor annexations for economic development and health reasons. Under GMA, the UGAs were established for potential armexafion, so we are compromising our position to agree to any zones; but we have done so in the WUGA. Moreover, it does make sense in the EUGA. For the County, this is the most immediate need in order to proceed with the EUGA sewer project. For the City, we do not suffer any foreseeable loss by entering this agreement. Once this policy direction is decided, the rest of the revenue-sharing proposal will be much easier. 2. Sewer: There is no disagreement for the need to put sewer into the EUGA for economic development and environmental benefits. The complications and differences in the past were driven largely by the uncertainty of financing options for this sewer infrastructure. Now, the County will fund and bond the capital construction, even apply for grants outside the Opportunity Fund. That agreement eliminates many concerns of the City regarding revenue-sharing. Staff encourages council to support this plan. The County's funding of this infrastructure is appropriate, since the City has already funded the treatment capacity for this area. It is clear that this infrastructure will spur economic growth and additional revenue to the County. 3. Revenue-Sharing: Our primary concern was to finance the infrastructure for development in a way so that this burden should not fall exclusively on City residents. The agreement of County financing removes that concern. In any event, if the two governments agree on the extension of the sewer with County financing and the phased annexation plan, then revenue-sharing is not as critical to either jurisdiction, and detailed discussion should be deferred so staff can work through the details. Re¢ommendatiom Support the extension of sewer to the EUGA with the County as a joint project on these conditions: · The County should fund the construction. · The City will manage the construction and agree to treat the wastewater. Agree to a phased planned for future annexations in the EUGA. Agree that staff will diligently work with the county to develop a revenue-sharing interlocal agreement and to address Kacee Way questions. AGREEMENT FOR PHASED ANNEXATION IN THE PORT ANGELES EAST UGA 1. This Agreement is intended to commit both the City and the County to a logical, progressive annexation plan for the Port Angeles East UGA. 2. Both the County and the City acknowledge that "shoestring" or "strip" annexations are illegal. Moreover such annexations are contrary to the public interest and welfare. The parties intend by this agreement to allow a series or sequence of mmexations in the Port Angeles East UGA area and at the same time to avoid strip annexations. 3. The plan for aggressive annexations is based on the attached map. The East UGA is divided into six (6) areas. In the south the green area is separated from the remainder of the UGA by Ennis Creek. It is treated separately. The purple area is distinct residential area. The area north of Hickory Street and east of Lee's Creek Road is a distinct residential Neighborhood. The other areas are labeled Blocks 1, 2, 3. 4. The parties agree that annexation shall proceed as follows: a. At least 80% of Block 1 shall be annexed before annexation of any of Block 2 or 3. b. After that, at least 60% of Block 2 shall be annexed before any of Block 3 is annexed. c. Any part or parts or all of the green and purple south areas and the north residential area may be annexed at any time without regard to the progress of annexations in Blocks 1, 2, and 3. It is anticipated that parts of these areas will annex when the area has sufficiently developed in density so that it is advantageous to the residents of the area to request annexation.