Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-10 Council Meeting Arlington City Council November 15, 2010 - 7 PM City Council Chambers 110 E. Third SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on the agenda. Please limit remarks to three minutes CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the November 1 & 8, 2010 meetings ATTACHMENT A 2. Accounts Payable 3. Planning Commission Appointment ~ D. Mathieson to 4-1-2015 ATTACHMENT B 4. Employment contract with B. Stedman ATTACHMENT C 5. Resolution Adopting Park Naming Policy ATTACHMENT D PUBLIC HEARING 1. 2011 Budget ATTACHMENT E 2. Stormwater Rate Increase ATTACHMENT F 3. Thompson Annexation ATTACHMENT G 4. Hilltop Annexation ATTACHMENT H 5. Proposed Minor Land Use Code Amendments ATTACHMENT I UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Utility Easements ATTACHMENT J 2. 170th Street Dedication ATTACHMENT K 3. Resolution setting 2011 Property Tax Levies ATTACHMENT L 4. Resolution declaring certain Airport property buildings as surplus ATTACHMENT M DISCUSSION ITEMS INFORMATION ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT To download all attachments, click here DRAFT Page 1 of 3 Council Chambers 110 East Third November 1, 2010 City Council Members Present by Roll Call: Dick Butner Sally Lien, Scott Solla, Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Linda Byrnes, and Steve Baker Council Members Absent: There were no Council members absent. City Staff Present: Allen Johnson, Kristin Banfield, Jim Chase, Jim Kelly, Rob Putnam, David Kuhl, Kris Wallace, Paul Ellis, Jan Bauer, Steve Peiffle – City Attorney Also Known to be Present: Walt Riebe, Michael Prihoda Arlington/Smokey Point Chamber, Sarah Arney – North County Outlook, Kirk Boxleitner – Arlington Times, Gale Fiege – Everett Herald, and Kari Ilonummi In the absent of Mayor Larson, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00PM, and the pledge of allegiance to the flag followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Agenda. Sally Lien seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. City Attorney Steve Peiffle addressed the removal from the Agenda the Joint City/Council Public Hearing on application for Open Space Property Tax designation. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Cornerstone Award – John L. Scott Shirley Case and Marilyn Artim were present to receive the Cornerstone Award for John L. Scott. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no one in the audience who wished to speak to matters not on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Marilyn Oertle moved and Sally Lien seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda which was unanimously carried to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 1. Minutes of the October 18 and 25th meetings 2. Accounts Payable Claims Checks #71409 through #71564 and Electronic Payments #EFT dated November 1, 2010 for $521,685.52 Payroll Checks #26921 through #26956 and Electronic Payments #127813 through #128064 for the period October 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010 in the amount of $1,290,541.95 3. Authority to go for bid for the construction of the Stormwater Wetland Project Minutes of the Arlington City Council Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT November 1, 2010 Page 2 of 3 4. Smokey Point Overlay – Project Closeout 5. Proposed Ordinance adopting changes to AMC 3.69 Petty Cash Revolving Fund 6. Proposed Resolution adopting a Purchasing Policy PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Stormwater Rate Increase With the use of a power point presentation Public Works Director Jim Kelly addressed the proposal to increase the stormwater utility rate and reasons for the request, also providing two scenarios being considered for the rate increase. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:17PM. Carolyn Erickson, 429 North Dunham, Arlington, requested information on the predictability of the consumer price index. Mr. Kelly answered her questions. Donna Larson, 135 N. Dunham, Arlington, was concerned about yet another rate increase for utilities coupled with the lack of cost of living raises for many individuals. Karl Moll, 7310 Florence Street, Arlington, compared the high water rates in Arlington with lower rates for those living in desert states. He suggested making better preparation and doing better planning for many city related activities within Arlington. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:29PM, and Mr. Kelly continued to answer Council questions. Discussion followed. Karl Moll again spoke, asking questions regarding the way in which rates are calculated and expressing the need to consider ways in which the City could spend less money for needed projects. Mr. Kelly addressed Mr. Moll’s questions. Council discussion followed. Dick Butner moved to continue The Proposed Stormwater Rate Increase Public Hearing to the November 15th Council meeting. Sally Lien seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. Proposed Resolution Setting 2011 Property Tax Levy With the use of an overhead projection Finance Director Jim Chase addressed the requested Property Tax Levy. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08PM. Karl Moll asked what value would be added with the property tax increase and what would happen if the levy didn’t pass. He again urged the City to seek alternatives to decrease operating expenses. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:11PM and discussion followed. The Proposed 2011 Property Tax Levy Public Hearing will be moved to the November 15th Council meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT November 1, 2010 Page 3 of 3 NEW BUSINESS With the use of a power point presentation Community Development Director David Kuhl located the property site and presented the requested Annexation. Set Public Hearing for the Thompson Annexation Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Resolution, setting the Public Hearing for the Thompson Annexation (File No. PLN20100015) for November 15, 2010. Sally Lien seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. With the use of a power point presentation David Kuhl located the site addressed the 26-acre Hilltop Sports Annexation. Set Public Hearing for the Hilltop Annexation Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Resolution, setting the Public Hearing for the Hilltop Sports Annexation (File No. PLN20100004) for November 15, 2010. Sally Lien seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. Airport Manager Rob Putnam spoke to the Grow and Cornehl property structures. Proposed Resolution declaring certain Airport Property Buildings as Surplus Linda Byrnes moved to declare the Grow and Cornehl property structures as surplus and to authorize staff to present a Resolution for consideration at the next meeting. Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. MAYOR’S REPORT In the absent of Mayor Larson there was no Mayor’s report. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL Sally Lien, Marilyn Oertle, Steve Baker, and Linda Byrnes gave brief reports, while Dick Butner, Scott Solla, and Chris Raezer had nothing to report at this time. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney announced that there would not be need for an Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30PM. ____________________________ Steve Baker, Mayor Pro-Tem DRAFT Page 1 of 2 Council Chambers 110 East Third Street November 8, 2010 Dick Butner, Sally Lien, Scott Solla, Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Linda Byrnes, and Steve Baker, Allen Johnson, Kristin Banfield, Paul Ellis, Jim Kelly, Eric Scott, Kris Wallace, Julie Good, and Jan Bauer Council Members Absent: There were no Council members absent. Also Known to be Present: Sarah Arney – North County Outlook In the absence of Mayor Larson, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00PM, and the pledge to the flag followed. Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Agenda, and Scott Solla seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote approving the Workshop Agenda. WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO ACTION WAS TAKEN Utility Easement Public Works Director Jim Kelly noted the four requested utility easements. He then answered Council questions. This will be presented for action at the November 15, 2010 Council meeting. 170th Street Dedication Mr. Kelly noted the dedication of property from the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians for the 170th Street needed for 170th Street. Stormwater Rate Increase Discussion Mr. Kelly asked for additional comments on the Stormwater Rate Increase. He asked which rate increase option was preferred by the Community as indicated at the November 1, 2010 meeting. Discussion followed regarding impact on the community regarding each of the two scenarios. Mr. Kelly asked for direction and a decision by the next Council meeting regarding which scenario the Council would approve. Revision to Park Naming Policy Paul Ellis, Assistant to the City Administrator for Special Projects, stated that at their last meeting the PARC had reviewed the Park Naming Policy and suggested several changes, simplifying the document. Mr. Ellis also noted tomorrow night’s Neighborhood Open House meeting and he extended an invite to the Council. Medical Insurance Coverage for 2011 Assistant City Administrator Kristin Banfield addressed the Medical Insurance Coverage for 2011 and changes the City of Arlington is making, as are other large companies. Human Resources Analyst Julie Good also answered Insurance change questions. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37PM. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Workshop Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT November 8, 2010 Page 2 of 2 ____________________________ Steve Baker, Mayor Pro-Tem City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda #3 ATTACHMENT B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: New Planning Commission Appointment: David Mathieson to 4-1-15. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Application of David Mathieson EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A DESCRIPTION: Mr. David Mathieson has interviewed for the position of Planning Commissioner. Councilman Baker participated on the interview panel. Mr. Mathieson has been positively recommended for the position on the Planning Commission. There were three other applicants that were interviewed. HISTORY: On May 18, 2009, the Council appointed Aaron McDonald to a six-year term on the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald has since stepped down in order to relocate to another city. This appointment will fill the remainder of the term, to April 1, 2015. ALTERNATIVES: Do not approve David Mathieson to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I move that Council approve the appointment of David Mathieson to the Planning Commission. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda #4 ATTACHMENT C COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Employment Contract with Bruce Stedman to serve as Fire Chief DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Executive Contact: Allen Johnson, 360-403-3441 Kristin Banfield, 360-403-3444 ATTACHMENTS: - Employment Contract with B. Stedman EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0- BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney has reviewed the Employment Agreement DESCRIPTION: City Council is requested to authorize the Mayor to execute the attached employment agreement with Bruce Stedman to serve as the City’s Fire Chief, effective December 6, 2010. HISTORY: ALTERNATIVES: Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the Employment Agreement RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Employment Agreement with Bruce Stedman to serve as the City’s Fire Chief. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda #5 ATTACHMENT D COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the Park Naming Criteria and Procedure Policy DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Executive Contact: Sarah Higgins, 360-403-3448 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution for Park Naming Policy EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0- BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney Reviewed Resolution DESCRIPTION: The Park, Arts, and Recreation Commission is recommending that the Park Naming Policy be revised so that it is less detailed in regards to who must be contacted when considering names for parks. PARC recommends that solicitation for names be done through the local newspaper, TV channel 21, and the City website. HISTORY: Reviewed at Council workshop on November 8. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XXX RESOLUTION NO. 2010- xxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING CITY OF ARLINGTON PARK NAMING POLICY WHEREAS, the Arlington City Council approved a park naming policy by motion on September 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City’s Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission has reviewed and recommended changes to the park naming policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to update this policy based upon the recommendations of the City’s Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City Council hereby approves the Park Naming Policy as attached. APPROVED by the Mayor Pro Tem and City Council of the City of Arlington this ______ day of ___________________, 2010. CITY OF ARLINGTON ___________________________ Steve Baker Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _________________________________ Kristin Banfield City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney Park Naming Criteria & Procedure As adopted by PARC on July 25, 2000 Amended by PARC on October 26, 2010 It is the policy of the City of Arlington to choose names for public parks and recreation facilities based upon the site’s relationship to the following criteria, in no particular order of importance: A. Neighborhood, geographic or common usage identification; B. A historical figure, place, event, or other instance of historical or cultural significance; C. Natural or geological features; D. An individual (living or deceased) who has made significant land and/or monetary contribution to the park system or who has had the contribution made “in memoriam” and when the name has been stipulated as a condition of the donation; or E. An individual who has contributed outstanding civic service to the City. F. The Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission shall review existing facility names in the City parks system in an effort to avoid duplication, confusing similarity or inappropriateness of a name. Park Naming Procedure A. The City Council shall designate the names of public parks or recreation facilities. The City Council shall make its selection after receiving a written recommendation from the City Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission, based upon public input from individuals and organizations. B. Suggestions for names shall be solicited through area newspapers, TV Channel 21, and the City website. All suggestions shall be recorded for consideration by the City Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission. C. If a contest or competition is to be held to determine the name of a park or recreation facility, the City Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission shall establish guidelines and rules for the contest. No City funds shall be used for any contest prizes. D. The interior features and/or facilities of a park or recreation facility may have names other than that of the entire park or recreation facility. These names are subject to the same criteria as for naming parks. E. A name once selected for a park or recreation facility should be bestowed with the intention that it will be permanent, and changes should be strongly resisted. Name changes shall be subject to the criteria designated above. F. Following the selection of a park or recreation facility name by the City Council, the City’s Parks Department will identify the specific park or facility by appropriate signage that specifies the name. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #1 ATTACHMENT E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: 2011 Preliminary Budget & Public Hearing DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance/Executive ATTACHMENTS: 2011 Preliminary Budget Document (previously received) Copy of the Summary is available on the City’s web-site EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: BUDGET CATEGORY: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Staff will answer any questions you may have regarding the 2011 Preliminary Budget. This will come back to the Council for action on December 6, 2010. HISTORY: The Council received the 2011 Preliminary Budget at the November 8, 2010 Workshop. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ACTION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action recommended at this time. The 2011 Budget will come back to the Council for action on December 6, 2010. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #2 ATTACHMENT F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15 , 2010 SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing - Proposed Stormwater Rate Increase DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works – Utilities Division James Kelly ATTACHMENTS: - Stormwater Rate Memo EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: No expenditure BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Pending Final Review by City Attorney DESCRIPTION: The City of Arlington, having recently completed an update to the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, needs to increase Stormwater Utility rates to fund needed Stormwater programs and capital improvement activities. HISTORY: – In 2005 the City established the Stormwater Utility charged with implementing the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan and the requirements of the soon to be issued NPDES Phase 2 stormwater permit (issued Feb 2007). In 2006 the City began charging a Stormwater Utility rate of $3.45 per month for a single family residence. This is a flat rate and until August 2010, there was no utility tax applied to this rate. Other property types pay a rate based on the amount of impervious surface area is on their property. The 2007 state implemented NPDES Phase 2 Permit has place a great deal of responsibility on the Stormwater Utility – all activities are designed to improve water quality. The financial requirements of implementing the NPDES Phase 2 permit have outpaced the revenue the Stormwater Utility generates from the current monthly rate and a rate increase is needed. ALTERNATIVES: - Remand to staff for additional financial analysis - Reject the proposed rate increase RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion authorizing staff to prepare an ordinance raising the Stormwater Utility rates based on Scenario _____ for presentation and adoption at the December 6, 2010 Council Meeting, pending final approval by the City Attorney. City of Arlington Public Works Memo To: Mayor Larson, City Council From: James Kelly cc: Allen Johnson Date: October 18, 2010 Re: Recommended Stormwater Utility Rate Increase The recently completed Stormwater Comprehensive Plan is an update to the City’s Final Draft Stormwater Management Plan (Barrett Consulting Group 1995). The update presents current conditions of the stormwater infrastructure in the city and Urban Growth Area, identifies regulatory issues and challenges facing the Stormwater Utility, presents a capital improvement program for continued/improved stormwater management, and a includes financial analysis weighing stormwater management responsibilities against stormwater revenues. The financial analysis showed that the Stormwater Utility cannot function at the current $3.45/month stormwater utility rate. The needed stormwater capital improvement projects, coupled with the increased regulatory requirements on the Stormwater Utility, can only be completed with an increase to the current stormwater utility rate. This memorandum summarizes the proposed rate increase. Stormwater Utility Operations – As the state’s clean water requirements focused on stormwater, the City appropriately responded to meet the new stormwater challenge. Some important dates and milestones for the Stormwater Utility: - 2005 the City created the Stormwater Utility; - 2006 the City established a stormwater monthly rate of $3.45 per Equivalent Surface Area (ESU) to fund the Stormwater Utility (an ESU - equal to a single family residential property or 6,000 square feet of impervious surface area for non-residential properties). - 2007 the City was issued an NPDES, Phase 2 stormwater permit; and in - 2008 the City hired a Stormwater Technician to coordinate the maintenance and regulatory requirements of the NPDES permit. The “Operation” of the Stormwater Utility encompasses many aspects of stormwater management; these include cleaning of City storm systems (in-house staff), inspection of public and private stormwater treatment systems, capital repair and improvement planning, stormwater utility billing, and education/outreach.  Page 2 The NPDES, Phase 2 stormwater permit is being phased in over a 5-year period; each year additional requirements are placed on the City to control and manage stormwater, these additional requirements place a personnel and financial strain on the Stormwater Utility. The Stormwater Comprehensive Plan’s financial analysis included an extended outlook of the operating expenses necessary to meet the NPDES Phase II requirements, to fund the pay off of existing debt, and to fund a share of Utility Administration (currently funded by water and sewer). A summary of the extended financial outlook is presented below: Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects - The Stormwater Comprehensive Plan identified approximately $17,674,000 of capital improvements and programs to upgrade the City’s storm infrastructure system; this is an unachievable effort to accomplish in the next six years. The City did develop a capital improvement scenario that is a reasonable alternative to make progress toward solving the City’s stormwater issues over the next six years and requires an investment of approximately $1.9 million. Added to the Storm Utility’s M&O expense, total Stormwater Utility expenditures will continue to escalate over the next six years. EST. STORM EXPENSE - WITH CAPITAL BUILD-UP PROGRAM - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Xfer to Storm Improv. for CIP Existing Loan (Prog. Devel. to w tr) Storm M&O Expense  Page 3 Proposed Rate Increase - The current stormwater charge was set in 2006 at $3.45 per ESU; currently there is no City Utility Tax levied on this rate. The below table presents two rate scenarios that include City Utility Tax and will meet the Stormwater Utility’s financial need for the next six years: Presented below for each rate scenario is a breakdown of the proposed six year revenue stream along with the Net Present Value (NPV- at assumed 2.2% cost of funds) of the revenue stream. A detailed breakdown of projected revenues and expenses is included at the end of this memorandum. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ESU Billing Units 10,704 10,734 10,764 10,794 10,824 10,854 10,884 10,914 Assumed CPI 0% 0% 1% 1.30% 2% 2.20% 2.20% 2.20% Scenario 1 - Rate increase in 2011, begin CPI increase in 2012 Rate $3.45 $6.00 $6.06 $6.14 $6.26 $6.40 $6.54 $6.68 Tax $0.00 $0.41 $0.41 $0.42 $0.43 $0.44 $0.44 Total Rate $0.45 $3.45 $6.41 $6.47 $6.56 $6.69 $6.83 $6.98 $7.14 Projected Revenue $443,146 $772,848 $782,758 $795,144 $813,301 $833,497 $854,189 $875,387 NPV $5,565,623.35 Scenario 2 - Rate increase in 2011, 2012, and 2013; begin CPI increase in 2014 Rate $3.45 $4.45 $5.45 $6.45 $6.58 $6.72 $6.87 $7.02 Tax $0.00 $0.30 $0.37 $0.44 $0.45 $0.46 $0.47 Total Scenario #2 $0.48 $3.45 $4.75 $5.82 $6.89 $7.02 $7.18 $7.34 $7.50 Projected Revenue $443,146 $572,889 $703,658 $835,147 $854,218 $875,430 $897,162 $919,427 NPV $5,484,151.67 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Scenario 1 $ 3.45 $ 6.41 CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI Scenario 2 $ 3.45 $ 4.75 $ 5.82 $ 6.89 CPI CPI CPI CPI Rate Comparison (Benchmarking) – While it is nice to know what other jurisdictions are charging for their Stormwater Services; it is important to remember that each jurisdiction may have other factors impacting the monthly rate, such as program scope and organization, need for major improvements, size of customer base, etc. The monthly rates compared in the below table were taken from information provided on the websites in February 2010. 1. These rates include both City and State utility tax Note 2. These jurisdictions do not charge City tax of stromwater rates Jurisdiction Monthly Storm Rate Note Duvall $16.92 1 Stanwood $12.25 1 Everett $11.60 1 Monroe $10.50 2 Sno. Co. - Arl UGA $10.17 2 Marysville $10.00 2 Snohomish $9.52 2 Lake Stevens $8.67 2 Unincorp. Sno. Co. $7.50 2 Sultan $6.75 2 Burlington $6.07 2 Arlington Proposed $6.41 1 Mt. Vernon $6.05 2 Arlington Exist $3.45 2 KI s a k s e n : A r l i n g t o n S t o r m F i n a n c i a l P l a n , D r a f t 1 0 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 As s u m p t i o n s Ne w R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Es t . R e v e n u e E S U ' s 10 , 4 0 1 10 , 7 0 4 10 , 7 3 4 10 , 7 6 4 10 , 7 9 4 10 , 8 2 4 10 , 8 5 4 10 , 8 8 4 CI T Y O F A R L I N G T O N - S T O R M AC T U A L AC T U A L AC T U A L Es t . / B d g t . Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d Pr o j e c t e d SI X - Y E A R P R O J E C T I O N S 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 20 1 6 St o r m w a t e r R e v e n u e / 5 * 1 2 m o s St o r m S e r v i c e C h a r g e s 34 0 , 3 7 4 34 9 , 6 8 3 34 9 , 1 4 4 36 1 , 5 3 6 36 2 , 7 7 8 36 4 , 0 2 0 36 5 , 2 6 2 36 6 , 5 0 4 36 7 , 7 4 6 36 8 , 9 8 8 St o r m S e r v i c e - M a r y s v i l l e B i l l i n g 52 , 9 3 6 77 , 6 5 1 81 , 4 5 9 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 81 , 6 0 0 In v e s t m e n t I n t e r e s t 3, 8 9 7 2, 3 6 4 1, 3 8 6 78 5 78 5 78 5 78 5 78 5 78 5 78 5 FE M A S t o r m A s s i s t a n c e 54 , 5 4 1 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s - - - 15 5 - - - - - - To t a l S t o r m R e v e n u e 39 7 , 2 0 7 42 9 , 6 9 8 43 1 , 9 8 9 49 8 , 6 1 7 44 5 , 1 6 3 44 6 , 4 0 5 44 7 , 6 4 7 44 8 , 8 8 9 45 0 , 1 3 1 45 1 , 3 7 3 St o r m E x p e n s e bu d g e t St o r m M & O E x p e n s e * 28 5 , 1 7 8 31 0 , 0 1 7 36 4 , 3 0 1 34 1 , 3 8 1 38 3 , 3 2 9 39 6 , 7 4 6 41 0 , 6 3 2 42 5 , 0 0 4 43 9 , 8 7 9 45 5 , 2 7 5 Ad d i t i o n a l S t a f f f o r N P D E S P h I I - - 77 , 6 2 5 80 , 3 4 2 83 , 1 5 4 86 , 0 6 4 89 , 0 7 6 Ex i s t i n g L o a n ( P r o g . D e v e l . t o w t r ) 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 Xf e r t o S t o r m I m p r o v . f o r C I P 70 , 5 9 3 21 , 5 1 7 25 , 0 0 0 10 0 , 0 0 0 34 0 , 0 0 0 26 5 , 0 0 0 26 5 , 0 0 0 26 5 , 0 0 0 26 5 , 0 0 0 26 5 , 0 0 0 To t a l S t o r m R e v e n u e 35 5 , 7 7 1 38 1 , 5 3 4 43 9 , 3 0 1 49 1 , 3 8 1 77 3 , 3 2 9 78 9 , 3 7 1 80 5 , 9 7 4 82 3 , 1 5 8 84 0 , 9 4 3 85 9 , 3 5 1 *b e g i n f u n d i n g $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( 5 % ) o f U t i l i t i e s A d m i n i n 2 0 1 0 An n u a l I n c r e a s e / ( U s e ) o f R e s e r v e s 41 , 4 3 6 48 , 1 6 4 (7 , 3 1 2 ) 7, 2 3 6 (3 2 8 , 1 6 7 ) (3 4 2 , 9 6 6 ) (3 5 8 , 3 2 7 ) (3 7 4 , 2 6 9 ) (3 9 0 , 8 1 3 ) (4 0 7 , 9 7 9 ) Cu m u l a t i v e % o f S v c s C h a r g e s 90 % 94 % 98 % 10 2 % 10 6 % 11 1 % Es t . I n c r e a s e / M o . - C u m u l a t i v e 2. 5 5 2. 6 6 2. 7 7 2. 8 9 3. 0 1 3. 1 3 Es t . I n c r e a s e / M o . - A n n u a l 2. 5 5 0. 1 1 0. 1 1 0. 1 2 0. 1 2 0. 1 2 Es t i m a t e d R a t e / E S U / M o . 3. 4 5 $ 3. 4 5 $ 6. 0 0 6. 1 1 6. 2 2 6. 3 4 6. 4 6 6. 5 8 Pr o p o s e d R a t e S c e n a r i o # 1 6. 0 0 by C P I by C P I by C P I by C P I by C P I Pr o p o s e d R a t e S c e n a r i o # 2 4. 4 5 5. 4 5 6. 4 5 by C P I by C P I by C P I Ra t e S u f f i c i e n c y T e s t An n u a l s e r v i c e c h a r g e s i n c l u d i n g t a x e s s h o u l d a t l e a s t p a y f o r M & O a n d d e b t s e r v i c e p a y m e n t s . Se r v i c e C h a r g e s 39 3 , 3 1 0 42 7 , 3 3 4 43 0 , 6 0 3 44 3 , 1 3 6 44 4 , 3 7 8 44 5 , 6 2 0 44 6 , 8 6 2 44 8 , 1 0 4 44 9 , 3 4 6 45 0 , 5 8 8 M& O + D e b t 28 5 , 1 7 8 36 0 , 0 1 7 41 4 , 3 0 1 39 1 , 3 8 1 50 8 , 3 2 9 52 4 , 3 7 1 54 0 , 9 7 4 55 8 , 1 5 8 57 5 , 9 4 3 59 4 , 3 5 1 An n u a l S u r p l u s / ( D e f i c i t ) 10 8 , 1 3 2 67 , 3 1 7 16 , 3 0 2 51 , 7 5 5 (6 3 , 9 5 1 ) (7 8 , 7 5 1 ) (9 4 , 1 1 2 ) (1 1 0 , 0 5 4 ) (1 2 6 , 5 9 7 ) (1 4 3 , 7 6 3 ) En d i n g F u n d B a l a n c e 42 , 1 5 7 90 , 3 1 9 83 , 0 0 7 90 , 2 4 3 (2 3 7 , 9 2 4 ) (5 8 0 , 8 9 0 ) (9 3 9 , 2 1 7 ) (1 , 3 1 3 , 4 8 6 ) (1 , 7 0 4 , 2 9 9 ) (2 , 1 1 2 , 2 7 7 ) (a n a l y s i s e x c l u d e s a l l t a x e s ) (a n a l y s i s e x c l u d e s a l l t a x e s ) Community Development City Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #3 ATTACHMENT E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Acceptance of 60% Petition to Annex for Thompson Annexation (File No. PLN20100015) and direct staff to forward the Notice of Intent to the Boundary Review Board the proposed Resolution. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map of proposed annexation 2. Proposed Resolution directing staff to forward Notice of Intent to the Boundary Review Board. 3. Staff Memo 4. 60% Annexation Petition with legal description and map 5. Certification of Sufficiency Petition from Snohomish County Assessor EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A DESCRIPTION: An Intention to Commence Annexation 60% Petition form has been submitted for approximately 14.04 acres located on the northeast corner of 172nd Street NE/SR 531 and SR 9. The property is within the City Urban Growth Area, and the current City limits abut the proposed annexation area on the west. The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial, and the zoning map pre-zones this area as General Commercial. HISTORY: Jim Thompson, submitted an application for annexation/Annexation 10% Petition form on June 14, 2010. On July 12, 2010 Council approved the 10% Petition to Annex. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant and the County to determine the amount of right-of-way to include in the proposed annexation. The attached maps show the current area proposed for annexation. On November 1, 2010 the Council set the Public Hearing date for November 15, 2010. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ACTION: None. Community Development City Council Agenda Bill ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approved as recommended. 2. Deny with or without prejudice 3. Continue the hearing and remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the 60% Petition to Annex for the Thompson Annexation (File No. PLN20100015) and approve the Resolution directing staff to prepare and forward the required application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. !"`$ ?Ô ?Ó ?| 47TH AVE NE 172ND ST NE 186TH ST NE 204TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 188TH ST NE TVEIT RD MCELROY RD CEMETERY RD 59TH AVE NE 51ST AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVD BURN RD Current City Limits " 1 inch = 3,577 feet Scale: Date: File: Cartographer: City Limits Arlington UGA Proposed Thompson Rail line Airport Streams State Highway State Route Arterial Collector Streets Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, eitherexpress or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particularpurpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liabilityof any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. City_8.5x11.mxd 10/26/2010 kdk Proposed Thompson Annexation Legend Proposed City Limits with Thompson annexation 176TH PL 178TH PL NE 176TH ST NE 172ND PL NE 175TH ST NE 85TH AVE NE 89TH AVE NE SR 531 85TH AVE NE 91ST AVE NE 84TH AVE NE 84TH AVE NE 84TH AVE NE SR 9 SR 9 P/SP GC RLMD City Zoning " 1 inch = 375 feet Scale: Date: File: Cartographer: Public ROWPrivate Roads*Streams City Limits Proposed Thompson County Parcels Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, eitherexpress or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particularpurpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liabilityof any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. CityZoning_8.5x11.mxd 10/26/2010 kdk Proposed Thompson Annexation Legend *Not all private roads shown. RLMD = Low to Mod erate Density Residential GC = General Commercial P/SP = Public/Semi-Public RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE THOMPSON ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington has reviewed the proposed annexation of property known as the Thompson annexation; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2010, the City Council held a meeting and set the public hearing date on the Thompson Annexation for November 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 15, 2010, to hear testimony concerning the annexation of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report on the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes annexation of the property with adoption of the city’s Land Use Designation of General Commercial pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and a Zoning Designation of General Commercial is appropriate and achieves the goals of the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the annexation of the property is financially feasible, is appropriate under the Growth Management Act (GMA), and is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the issue of the proposed annexation considered by the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board as expeditiously as possible, in the interests of the citizens of the City of Arlington and the residents and business owners of the annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: 1. City staff is hereby directed to prepare and submit a Notice of Intention to Annex the property described in the Thompson annexation petition, together with the supporting materials and information required by law, to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board forthwith. 2. The properties shall have the land use designations and zoning designations as shown on Exhibit A, map of the Thompson annexation area. 3. The properties included in the annexation shall assume their proportionate share of the City’s indebtedness. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Arlington this 15th day of November 2010. _______________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Community Development Planning Division MEMO \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Thompson 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 1 of 3 DATE: November 15, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Kuhl, AICP, Director Community Development RE: 60% Petition to Annex for Thompson (File No. PLN20100015) I. Project A. Description - This is a proposal to annex approximately 14.04 acres to the City of Arlington. There is a single-family residence, a mobile home, a barn, a garage and a coffee shop on the property. The requested zoning is General Commercial. B. Location - The property is located at the northeast corner of SR 9 and SR 531 /172nd St. The property is within the City’s Urban Growth Area, and the current City limits abut the proposed annexation area on the west. The City Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial, and the zoning map pre-zones this area as General Commercial. C. Environment - The property is generally flat. The property is bordered by vacant land and some scattered residential development to the north, east and southeast. Any environmental impacts of development would be identified and avoided or mitigated during the development process through the requirements of Arlington’s land use code, which includes the City’s SEPA and Critical Areas regulations. II. Procedural Background A. Jim Thompson submitted an application for annexation/Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation 10% Petition form on June 14, 2010. The City Council considered the 10% Notification of Intention to Annex on August 2, 2010 and authorized the applicant to circulate the 60% petition. The applicant submitted the 60% Petition form, which City staff forwarded to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office for verification of the signatures for the required 60% assessed valuation. A copy of the Certification of Sufficiency from the Assessor’s Office is included in the Council packet. The RCW requires property owners of property representing at least 60% of the assessed valuation for general taxation sign the petition. B. The applicant submitted the 60% Petition to Annex. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.130, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider it. At their \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Thompson 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 2 of 3 meeting on November 1, 2010, the Council set the public hearing date for November 15, 2010. Public notice of this hearing was published, posted at 3 locations in the annexation area, and posted on the City’s official notification boards on October 27, 2010. C. If approved, staff will develop and forward the application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board for their review and the required Boundary Review Board review process period. D. If approved by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council must approve the annexation by adoption of an ordinance after this process is complete. III. Issue(s) A. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 1. The project meets the goals and policies of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for future urban growth as General Commercial (Comprehensive Plan 7.3.1.2.3). B. Compliance with Zoning Map - The Official Zoning Map shows the area as General Commercial. The applicant is requesting zoning of General Commercial. The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial. Policy Objective: The proposed annexation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and pre-zoning and meets the requirements of the Arlington Municipal Code Title 20, Land Use Code (LUC) Chapters 20.40, Permissible Uses, and 20.94, Annexations. C. Compliance with the Master Annexation ILA - Snohomish County staff will officially review the proposal once the Notice of Intention (NOI) is sent. However, City staff’s review of the ILA, indicate that the annexation is consistent with the Master ILA. D. Assumption of Indebtedness - Staff recommends that the annexed property assume a pro rata share of the City's outstanding indebtedness that had been approved by the voters, contracted, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annexation, as in all past annexations. E. Urban Service Provision - All urban services would be provided by the City of Arlington, including sewer and water. F. Known Proposed Uses - The property will be used for future commercial development. G. Objectives of the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) - The boundary review board is directed by RCW 36.93.180 to “attempt to achieve” the following objectives with respect to an annexation: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities - This property abuts the current City limits on the west and consists of one parcel of land, which will be used for commercial development and existing residential housing. The surrounding area on the north, east and southeast are rural residential parcels developed with single-family residences. The property to the west, south and southwest are vacant parcels. The adjacent residents and the property owners of the property proposed for annexation would consider themselves most closely related to the City Arlington. 2. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours - The property abuts SR 531/172nd St on the south and SR 9 on the west. There are no physical boundaries to the \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Thompson 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 3 of 3 north or east, but the proposed annexation encompasses all the Thompson property and is within the boundary of the City’s UGA. 3. Creation and preservation of logical service areas - This property is within the City of Arlington service area and near no others. 4. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries - No abnormally irregular boundaries are formed by the annexation. 5. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of 10,000 population in heavily populated urban areas - Not applicable, as there is not the population base here to incorporate. 6. Adjustment of impractical boundaries – There are no impractical boundaries in this area. 7. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas that are urban in character - Though not urban in nature, this property will be able to develop to urban commercial standards once it is annexed, thus helping to fulfill the City’s GMA obligations. 8. Protection of agricultural and rural lands that are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority - This property has been neither identified nor designated by the County as such. IV. Staff Recommendation A. Planning Division Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No.___, approving the 60% Petition to Annex for the Thompson Annexation and directing staff to prepare and forward the required application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. V. Council Options A. Approve as recommended. B. Deny with or without prejudice. (Implications of this option: Denial with prejudice eliminates applicant’s opportunity to resubmit the application within one year of denial. Denial without prejudice allows the applicant to submit another application for approval no sooner than 120 calendar days after the date of such denial.) C. Continue the hearing and remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. VI. Parties of Record A. Jim Thompson, P.O. Box 5616, Everett WA 98206. Community Development City Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #4 ATTACHMENT H COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Acceptance of 60% Petition to Annex for Hilltop Sports Annexation (File No. PLN20100004) and direct staff to forward the Notice of Intent to the Boundary Review Board (Resolution….) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development David Kuhl ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial map of proposed annexation 2. Proposed Resolution directing staff to forward Notice of Intent to the Boundary Review Board. 3. Staff Memo 4. 60% Annexation Petition with legal description and map 5. Certification of Sufficiency Petition from Snohomish County Assessor EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A DESCRIPTION: An Intention to Commence Annexation 60% Petition form has been submitted for approximately 26.12 acres located on the southeast corner of 172nd Street NE/SR 531 and SR 9. The property is within the City Urban Growth Area, and the current City limits abut the proposed annexation area on the north. The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial, and the zoning map pre-zones this area as General Commercial. HISTORY: Thomas Barry on behalf of S. Jay Lee and Hilltop Sports, LLC, submitted an application for annexation/Annexation 10% Petition form on February 17, 2010. On April 5, 2010 Council approved the 10% Petition to Annex. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant and the County to determine the amount of right-of-way to include in the proposed annexation. The attached maps show the current area proposed for annexation. On November 1, 2010 the Council set the Public Hearing date for November 15, 2010. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ACTION: None. Community Development City Council Agenda Bill ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approved as recommended. 2. Deny with or without prejudice 3. Continue the hearing and remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the 60% Petition to Annex for the Thompson Annexation (File No. PLN20100015) and approve Resolution directing staff to prepare and forward the required application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. !"`$ ?Ô ?Ó ?| 47TH AVE NE 172ND ST NE 186TH ST NE 204TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 188TH ST NE TVEIT RD MCELROY RD CEMETERY RD 59TH AVE NE 51ST AVE NE SMOKEY POINT BLVD BURN RD Current City Limits " 1 inch = 3,577 feet Scale: Date: File: Cartographer: City Limits Arlington UGA Proposed Hilltop Sports Rail line Airport Streams State Highway State Route Arterial Collector Streets Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, eitherexpress or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particularpurpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liabilityof any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. City_8.5x11.mxd 10/26/2010 kdk Proposed Hilltop Sports Annexation Legend Proposed City Limits with Hilltop Sportsannexation 172ND PL NE 175TH ST NE 85TH AVE NE 89TH AVE NE SR 531 SR 9 84TH AVE NE 84TH AVE NE 91ST AVE NE P/SP GCRLMD City Zoning " 1 inch = 392 feet Scale: Date: File: Cartographer: Public ROWPrivate Roads*Streams City Limits Proposed Hilltop Sports County Parcels Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, eitherexpress or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particularpurpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liabilityof any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. CityZoning_8.5x11.mxd 10/26/2010 kdk Proposed Hilltop Sports Annexation Legend *Not all private roads shown. RLMD = Low to Mod erate Density Residential GC = General Commercial P/SP = Public/Semi-Public Proposed Hilltop Sports Annexation RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE HILLTOP SPORTS ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington has reviewed the proposed annexation of property known as the Hilltop Sports annexation; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2010, the City Council held a meeting and set the public hearing date on the Bertrand Annexation for November 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 15, 2010, to hear testimony concerning the annexation of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report on the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes annexation of the property with adoption of the city’s Land Use Designation of General Commercial pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and a Zoning Designation of General Commercial is appropriate and achieves the goals of the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the annexation of the property is financially feasible, is appropriate under the Growth Management Act (GMA), and is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the issue of the proposed annexation considered by the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board as expeditiously as possible, in the interests of the citizens of the City of Arlington and the residents and business owners of the annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: 1. City staff is hereby directed to prepare and submit a Notice of Intention to Annex the property described in the Hilltop Sports annexation petition, together with the supporting materials and information required by law, to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board forthwith. 2. The properties shall have the land use designations and zoning designations as shown on Exhibit A, map of the Hilltop Sports annexation area. 3. The properties included in the annexation shall assume their proportionate share of the City’s indebtedness. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Arlington this 15th day of November 2010. _______________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Community Development Planning Division MEMO \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Hilltop 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 1 of 3 DATE: November 15, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Kuhl, AICP, Director Community Development RE: 60% Petition to Annex for Hilltop Sports Annexation (File No. PLN20100004) I. Project A. Description - This is a proposal to annex approximately 26.12 acres to the City of Arlington. There is a single-family residence on the property, a gun range and miscellaneous outbuildings. The requested zoning is General Commercial. B. Location - The property is located at the southeast corner of SR 9 and SR 531 (172nd St. The property is within the City’s Urban Growth Area, and the current City limits abut the proposed annexation area on the north. The City Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial, and the zoning map pre-zones this area as General Commercial. C. Environment - The property slopes and drains to the west and also infiltrates. There is also a stream that bisects the property. The property is bordered by vacant land, residential development to the west and some limited commercial and residential development to the northeast. Any environmental impacts of development would be identified and avoided or mitigated during the development process through the requirements of Arlington’s land use code, which includes the City’s SEPA and Critical Areas regulations. II. Procedural Background A. Thomas Barry, on behalf of Hilltop Sports submitted an application for annexation/Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation 10% Petition form on February 17, 2010. The City Council considered the 10% Notification of Intention to Annex on April 5, 2010 and authorized the applicant to circulate the 60% petition. The applicant submitted the 60% Petition form on September 23, 2010, which City staff forwarded to the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office for verification of the signatures for the required 60% assessed valuation. A copy of the Certification of Sufficiency from the Assessor’s Office is included in the Council packet. The RCW requires property owners of property representing at least 60% of the assessed valuation for general taxation sign the petition. \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Hilltop 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 2 of 3 B. The applicant submitted the 60% Petition to Annex. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.130, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider it. At their meeting on November 1, 2010, the Council set the public hearing date for November 15, 2010. Public notice of this hearing was published, posted at 3 locations in the annexation area, and posted on the City’s official notification boards on October 27, 2010. C. If approved, staff will develop and forward the application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board for their review and the required Boundary Review Board review process period. D. If approved by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council must approve the annexation by adoption of an ordinance after this process is complete. III. Issue(s) A. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 1. The project meets the goals and policies of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for future urban growth as General Commercial (Comprehensive Plan 7.3.1.2.3). B. Compliance with Zoning Map - The Official Zoning Map shows the area as General Commercial. The applicant is requesting zoning of General Commercial. The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Commercial. Policy Objective: The proposed annexation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and pre-zoning and meets the requirements of the Arlington Municipal Code Title 20, Land Use Code (LUC) Chapters 20.40, Permissible Uses, and 20.94, Annexations. C. Compliance with the Master Annexation ILA - Snohomish County staff will officially review the proposal once the Notice of Intention (NOI) is sent. However, City staff’s review of the ILA, indicate that the annexation is consistent with the Master ILA. D. Assumption of Indebtedness - Staff recommends that the annexed property assume a pro rata share of the City's outstanding indebtedness that had been approved by the voters, contracted, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annexation, as in all past annexations. E. Urban Service Provision - All urban services would be provided by the City of Arlington, including sewer and water. F. Known Proposed Uses - The property will be used for future commercial development. G. Objectives of the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) - The boundary review board is directed by RCW 36.93.180 to “attempt to achieve” the following objectives with respect to an annexation: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities - This property abuts the current City limits on the north and consists of five parcels of land, which will be used for commercial development. The surrounding area on the west are small parcels developed with single-family residences and on the north, east, and south are vacant parcels. There is some limited residential and commercial development to the northeast. The adjacent residents and the property owners of the property proposed for annexation would consider themselves most closely related to the City Arlington. \\coaadmin1\Executive\Shared\2010 Council Agendas\November 15, 2010\Hilltop 60% Memo to CC.doc yjp; 11/10/10 Page 3 of 3 2. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours - The property abuts SR 531/172nd St on the north and SR 9 on the east. There are no physical boundaries to the west or south, but the proposed annexation encompasses all the Hilltop Sports property and is within the boundary of the City’s UGA. 3. Creation and preservation of logical service areas - This property is within the City of Arlington service area and near no others. 4. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries - No abnormally irregular boundaries are formed by the annexation. 5. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of 10,000 population in heavily populated urban areas - Not applicable, as there is not the population base here to incorporate. 6. Adjustment of impractical boundaries – There are no impractical boundaries in this area. 7. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas that are urban in character - Though not urban in nature, this property will be able to develop to urban commercial standards once it is annexed, thus helping to fulfill the City’s GMA obligations. 8. Protection of agricultural and rural lands that are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority - This property has been neither identified nor designated by the County as such. IV. Staff Recommendation A. Planning Division Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No.___, approving the 60% Petition to Annex for the Hilltop Sports Annexation and directing staff to prepare and forward the required application packet to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. V. Council Options A. Approve as recommended. B. Deny with or without prejudice. (Implications of this option: Denial with prejudice eliminates applicant’s opportunity to resubmit the application within one year of denial. Denial without prejudice allows the applicant to submit another application for approval no sooner than 120 calendar days after the date of such denial.) C. Continue the hearing and remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. VI. Parties of Record A. Thomas Barry, Metron and Associates, 307 N. Olympic Avenue, Arlington WA, 98223. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #5 ATTACHMENT I COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Proposed Minor Land Use Code Amendments DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development – David Kuhl, Todd Hall ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Public Hearing Memo, including proposed Land Use Code amendments EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: N/A DESCRIPTION: Attached are City-initiated, City-wide, minor amendments to the Arlington Municipal Code Title 20, Land Use Code, for extension of final plats, appeals of hearing examiner decisions, design, impact fees and general administrative clean-up. HISTORY: This is a City-initiated proposal to amend the City’s Land Use Code. The amendments were presented at the October 25, 2010 Council workshop and the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the amendments on October 19, 2010. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for the City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt proposed amendments at their November 15, 2010 meeting, with exception of the addition of use 10.220 and 10.300 within the HC zone, and a height increase for freestanding signs within BP, GI and LI. These two amendments were tabled for further review. ALTERNATIVES: No action. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the amended Land Use Code amendments as presented by Community Development staff and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. City Council Public Hearing Date: November 15, 2010 To: City Council From: David Kuhl, Community Development Director Todd Hall, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Amendments to Title 20 Land Use Code The following are City-initiated, City-wide, minor amendments to Arlington Municipal Code Title 20, Land Use Code, for extension of final plats, appeals of hearing examiner decisions, design, impact fees and general administrative clean-up. The Planning Commission approved the changes at a public hearing on October 19, 2010, with the exception of two proposed amendments. The Commission tabled a proposed amendment pertaining to storage of vehicles/RVs outside of completely enclosed structures in the HC zone, and also an amendment to increase the height of freestanding signs within the BP, GI, and LI zones. The Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption of the remaining amendments at their next meeting. On October 25 2010, the City Council discussed the amendments at their workshop and stated they would hold a public hearing on the remaining land use code amendments at their November 15, 2010 meeting. Staff requests the City Council make a motion to adopt the code amendments as proposed below. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Amendment #1: 20.16 Permits and Final Plat Approval 20.16.220 Expiration of Permits. (a) Zoning (other than for preliminary short plats), special use, conditional use (other than for preliminary major plats), and sign permits shall expire automatically if, within two years after the issuance of such permits: Community Development Planning Division November 15, 2010 City Council Public Hearing 1. The use authorized by such permits has not commenced, in circum stances where no substantial construction, erection, alteration, exc avation, demolition, or similar work is necessary before commencement of such use, or 2. Less than 10 percent of the total cost of all construction, erection, a lteration, excavation, demolition, or similar work on any development a uthorized by such permits has been completed on the site. With respect to phased development (see §20.16.210, Completing Developments in Phases), this requirement shall apply only to the first phase. (b) Zoning permits for preliminary short plats or conditional use permits for major plats shall expire automatically if, within seven five years after the issuance of such permits: 1. The plat has not been finalled, or 2. A one-year extension has not been granted per Subsection (e). Staff Comment This amendment updates the AMC to be consistent with SSB 6544 passed in June 2010. Amendment #2: 20.20 Appeals, Variances, Interpretations 20.20.020 Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions. (a) Appeals from the final decision of the Hearing Examiner, or other city board or body involving the City’s Land Use Code and for which all other appeals specifically authorized have been timely exhausted, shall be made to Snoh omish County Superior Court pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, within 21 days of the date the decision or action became final, unless another applicable appeal process or time period is established by state law or local ordinance. (b) Upon motion for reconsideration, the date of the decision is the date of entry of the decision on the reconsideration motion by the Hearing Examiner and not the original decision date by the City. (b)(c) Notice of the appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served as required by law within the applicable time period. This requirement is jurisdictional. (c)(d) The cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered certified by the court or desired by the appellant for such appeal shall be borne by the appellant. The record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the City or such qualified person as it selects. Prior to the preparation of any records the appellant shall post with the City Department of Community Development an advance fee deposit in the amount specified by the City’s planning division. Any overage will be promptly returned to the appellant. November 15, 2010 City Council Public Hearing Staff Comment This language updates the AMC to be consistent with HB 2740 passed in June 2010. HB 2740 clarifies that, under LUPA, when a motion for reconsideration of a local land use decision has been filed with the local decision making authority, the date of the "land use decision" is the date of the entry of the decision on the reconsideration motion rather than the date of the original decision. Amendment #3: 20.46 Design 20.46.010 Conformance with Design Guidelines or Standards. (b) A building or land use permit may be issued for a structure or use that does not comply with Subsection (a) if any one of the followin g findings can be made by the decision-making authority: 1. The structure is of a temporary nature that, in all likelihood, will be r eplaced by a permanent structure within two years. 2. The structure is minor to the overall use of the property and will not be noticeably visible from a public right-of-way. 3. An addition to an existing structure that is less than 500 square feet at the Directors discretion. Staff Comment This amendment would allow small additions to existing structures without having to go through design review. Amendment #4: 20.90 Concurrency and Impact Fees Part IV. Impact Fee Credits. 20.90.410 Credit of Impact Fee Amount. (a) Impact fees shall be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of facilities, or any combination of values provided by the developer if such facilities are listed in the City’s current adopted Capital Facilities or Comprehensive Plan and required as a condition of the development approval, and in accordance with RCW 82.02.060(3). (b) Impact fees shall not be credited for those transportation improvement projects that are required by the City’s Capital Facilities Plan or Comprehensive Plan, unless those improvements are in excess of the minimum develo pment standards set out in this Title. Conditions for the credit shall be based on the criteria indicated in 20.90.040 (d). November 15, 2010 City Council Public Hearing Staff Comment This is new language to the Code which allows the City to credit impact fees to developers if they construct projects that are listed in the CFP. To clarify, these credits are not in-lieu of required traffic impact fees, which are required and based on impacts a specific project has on the local road system. Amendment #5: General Administrative Clean-Up Change all code references of 13.24 to 13.28, which is the correct number of the Stormwater Management chapter of the AMC. Change all code references of 20.42.020 to 20.48.020, which is the correct number of the Residential Density section. Staff Comment None. ORDINANCE NO. _____ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2010-xxx AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON MAKING MINOR AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has adopted a land use code and development design guidelines; and WHEREAS, following adoption of said land use code, various technical corrections or amendments are necessary to provide for internal consistency and to improve the code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered these amendments at their October 19, 2010 public hearing and recommended to the City Council to adopt the amendments, with exception to those related to permitted use 10.220 and 10.300; and the increase of height for freestanding signs within BP, LI and GI zones. The City Council considered these amendments at their October 25, 2010 workshop and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code §20.16.220(b) shall be amended to read as follows: 20.16.220 Expiration of Permits. (b) Zoning permits for preliminary short plats or conditional use permits for major plats shall expire automatically if, within seven five years after the issuance of such permits: 1. The plat has not been finalled, or 2. A one-year extension has not been granted per Subsection (e). Section 2. A new subsection (b) shall be added to Arlington Municipal Code §20.20.020(b) to read as follows: 20.20.020 Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions. (a) Appeals from the final decision of the Hearing Examiner, or other city board or body involving the City’s Land Use Code and for which all other appeals specifically authorized have been timely exhausted, shall be made to Snohomish County Superior Court pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, within 21 days of the date the decision or action became final, unless another applicable appeal process or time period is established by state law or local ordinance. (b) Upon motion for reconsideration, the date of the decision is the date of entry of the ORDINANCE NO. _____ 2 decision on the reconsideration motion by the Hearing Examiner and not the original decision date by the City. (b)(c) Notice of the appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served as required by law within the applicable time period. This requirement is jurisdictional. (c)(d) The cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered certified by the court or desired by the appellant for such appeal shall be borne by the appellant. The record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the City or such qualified person as it selects. Prior to the preparation of any records the appellant shall post with the City Department of Community Development an advance fee deposit in the amount specified by the City’s planning division. Any overage will be promptly returned to the appellant. Section 3. Arlington Municipal Code §20.46.010 shall be amended as follows: 20.46.010 Design Review Process. (b) A building or land use permit may be issued for a structure or use that does not comply with Subsection (a) if any one of the following findings can be made by the decision-making authority: 1. The structure is of a temporary nature that, in all likelihood, will be replaced by a permanent structure within two years. 2. The structure is minor to the overall use of the property and will not be noticeably visible from a public right-of-way. 3. An addition to an existing structure that is less than 500 square feet at the Directors discretion. Section 4. A new section to Arlington Municipal Code §20.90 Concurrency and Impact Fees shall be added to read as follows: Part IV. Impact Fee Credits. 20.90.410 Credit of Impact Fee Amount. (a) Impact fees shall be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of facilities, or any combination of values provided by the developer if such facilities are listed in the City’s current adopted Capital Facilities or Comprehensive Plan and required as a condition of the development approval, and in accordance with RCW 82.02.060(3). (b) Impact fees shall not be credited for those transportation improvement projects that are required by the City’s Capital Facilities Plan or Comprehensive Plan, unless those improvements are in excess of the minimum development standards set out in this Title. Conditions for the credit shall be based on the criteria indicated in 20.90.040 (d). ORDINANCE NO. _____ 3 Section 5. General Administrative Clean-Up. Arlington Municipal Code §20.16 Permits & Final Plat Approval shall be amended as follows: Change all code references of 20.42.020 to 20.48.020, which is the correct number of the Residential Density section. Arlington Municipal Code Sections §20.44, 20.64, 20.80 shall be amended as follows: Change all code references of 13.24 to 13.28, which is the correct number of the Stormwater Management chapter Section 6 Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7. Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance consisting of its title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days of the date of publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this day of ________________, 2010. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk APPROVED TO AS FORM: __________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #1 ATTACHMENT J COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Four Utility Easements - Wells stormwater utility easement - Hilltop sewer utility easement, - Gray1Washington sewer utility easement - Thompson sewer utility easement DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works – James Kelly ATTACHMENTS: • Maps for Wells stormwater utility easement, Hilltop sewer utility easement, Gray1Washington sewer utility easement and Thompson sewer utility easement. EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: City Attorney will prepare the final easement documents upon approval by the Council to Accept the Easement DESCRIPTION: To support development and as a condition of service, City owned and maintained utility infrastructure must be installed on private property. A utility easement allows for the installation and future maintenance of that infrastructure. HISTORY: Wells Storm Utility Easement - During the construction of new residential units on Division St, it was determined that an additional storm water line needed to be installed through the Wells property in order to provide adequate drainage from the alley to the Gilman storm sewer. This utility easement provides for that line to cross Mr. Wells property. Hilltop, Gray1Washington, Thompson Utility Easements – The City will be providing sanitary sewer service to the area surrounding the SR-9 and 172nd Street as a condition of their annexation. These utility easements provide for the construction and future maintenance of sewer systems on Hilltop, Gray1Washington, Thompson properties. ALTERNATIVES: • Do not accept the utility easements RECOMMENDED MOTION: Recommend that Council accept and approve the Wells stormwater utility easement, Hilltop sewer utility easement, Gray1Washington sewer utility easement and Thompson sewer utility easement and authorize the City Attorney to draft the appropriate easement document for signature by the property owners. E GILMAN AVE N ALCAZAR AVE "Leg end ROW County Parcels Proposed Easement Scale: Date : File N ame: Carto graphe r: GilmanStorm_10.mxd 09/23/2010 lb Exhibit :E. G ilm an Sto rm water Easement City of Arlington 1 inch = 50 fee t Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind,either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. SR 531 172ND ST NE 85TH AVE NE City of Arlington Hilltop Sports LLC Proposed Utility Easement Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” withoutwarranties of any kind, either express or implied,including but not limited to warranties of suitability for aparticular purpose or use. Map data are compiled from avariety of sources which may contain errors and userswho rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmlessthe City of Arlington for any and all liability of any naturearising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy orcorrectness of the data, or the use of the data presentedin the maps. lb Hilltop_Utility_ease_10.mxd 10/28/2010 Date: File: Cartographer: "" 1 in = 100 feetScale: SR 9 ( Data from WDOT) Proposed Easement County Parcels Legend Current ROW line Future ROW line SR 9 SR 531 172ND ST NE Scale: Date : File N ame: Carto graphe r: Gray1Washington_Utility_ease_10.mxd 10/28/2010 lb Gray 1 Washington, LLCProposed 10' Sewer Utility Easement City of Arlington 1 inch = 50 fee tProposed Easement County Parcels Legend Current ROW line Future ROW line Data from WDOT " SR 9 SR 531 172ND ST NE Scale: Date : File N ame: Carto graphe r: Thompson_Utility_ease_10.mxd 10/28/2010 lb ThompsonProposed 10' Sewer Utility Easement City of Arlington 1 inch = 50 fee tProposed Easement County Parcels Legend Current ROW line Future ROW line Data from WDOT " City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #2 ATTACHMENT K COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Dedication of Right of Way from the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians for ½ of 170th Street NE DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works – Engineering ATTACHMENTS: • Map of roadway to be dedicated EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Legal description has been reviewed by staff, upon approval of acceptance by Council; the City Attorney will draft the appropriate easement document for signature by the property owner. DESCRIPTION: As part of the Stillaguamish Behavioral Center development, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians is dedicating to the City half of 170th Street NE fronting the developed property. HISTORY: As a condition of the site development, the property owner is required to dedicate this property to the City as right-of-way for the future 170th Street NE. This dedication is for the southern half of the future 170th Street NE, the northern half will be dedicated when the property abutting this road section develops. ALTERNATIVES: • Remand to staff for additional information • Table pending additional discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: Recommend that Council accept and approve the dedication Right of Way from the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians for 170th Street NE and authorize the City Attorney to draft the appropriate easement document for signature by the property owner. SR 531 59TH AVE NE 172ND ST NE "Legend ROW ROW Dedication A rea Cou nty Parcels Scale: Date : File N ame: Carto graphe r: StilliBehav_ROWded_170th_10.mxd 10/5/2010 lb Exhibit :Stillaguamish Behavioral Health170th Street ROW Dedication City of Arlington 1 inch = 1 00 fe et Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS”without warranties of any kind, eitherexpress or implied, including but not limitedto warranties of suitability for a particularpurpose or use. Map data are compiled froma variety of sources which m ay containerrors and users who rely upon theinformation do so at their own risk. U sersagree to indemnify, defend, and holdharmless the City of Arlington for any and all City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #3 ATTACHMENT L COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Setting the 2011 Property Tax Levies DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Executive, Allen Johnson 403-3443 Finance, Jim Chase 403-3422 ATTACHMENTS: -Proposed resolution for setting property tax levies EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: This has been reviewed by the City Attorney. DESCRIPTION: The proposed property tax levy for 2011 is $ 1.17 per $ 1,000 of assessed valuation for regular and EMS at $0.50 since the voted levy was approved. The proposed levy includes dollars from new construction and annexation value and a 1% increase (the lesser of 1% or IPD). Property taxes are used to provide basic city services, including police, fire, EMS and street maintenance. HISTORY: The City Council is required, following public hearing, to set an annual property tax levy by November 30th of each year. Public hearing was held on November 1, 2010 as required by law. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED ACTION: I make a motion to adopt the Resolution as presented. RESOLUTION NO. XXX-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON TO INCREASE THE 2011 PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2011; and WHEREAS, the City’s actual levy amount from the previous year was $2,315,625 for regular property taxes and $ 919,701 for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property taxes. WHEREAS, the population of the City of Arlington is more than 10,000, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington after hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony, determined that the City of Arlington requires a regular property tax levy in the amount of $ 2,361,121, and an EMS tax levy of $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed property values in the city in the amount of $ 1,006,511, which has been approved by the voters and includes estimated amounts resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City and in its best interest; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arlington Section 1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the 2011 levy in the amount of $ 23,156, which is a percentage increase of 1% from the previous year. Section 2. That an increase in the EMS property tax levy is hereby authorized for the 2011 levy in the amount of $86,810, due to the voters approving the EMS levy on November 2, 2010, increasing the levy rate to $0.50. The levy rate for 2010 is $0.41. Section 3. These increases are exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increases in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, also known as “add-ons”. PASSED and APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington, at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of November, 2010. _____________________________ ATTEST: Margaret Larson, Mayor ______________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #5 ATTACHMENT M COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Authorizing the Mayor to sign the resolution to surplus the buildings on the Grow and Cornehl properties. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Airport – Rob Putnam ATTACHMENTS: Resolution EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Airport currently owns multiple buildings within the current and future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) on the former Grow and Cornehl properties. The FAA requires the structures to be removed from both the current and future RPZ’s. The Airport Commission would like the City Council to declare the buildings as surplus so Airport Staff can start the process to dispose of them. HISTORY: The FAA funded the purchase of the Grow property and the RPZ portion of the Cornehl property. A requirement of FAA funded property purchases is that all buildings be removed from the property. No buildings are allowed to penetrate the RPZ. Currently the barn on the Cornehl property is inside the RPZ. The buildings on the Grow property will be within the future RPZ. Having the buildings declared surplus needs to be done prior to Staff being able to have them removed. Once the City Council declares the structures surplus, Airport Staff will solicit offers for the buildings via want ads. The Fire Department will be using the Grow house for training and burning it down in the winter. ALTERNATIVES: Approve the Commission’s recommendation with modifications Table Commission’s recommendation Deny Commission’s recommendation RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Airport Commission recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution to surplus the structures on the Grow and Cornehl properties. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-XXX A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN PROPERTY AS SURPLUS WHEREAS, the City recently acquired properties commonly known as the “Grow property” and the “Cornehl property”; and WHEREAS, both properties contain buildings which have no value to the City and which need to be disposed of because they are located within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the airport runways; and WHEREAS, removal of the structures is required by the FAA; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems the value of the buildings to be surplused to be insignificant and not worthy of appraisal or the costs of a public sale; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington Washington do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council finds the buildings located on the properties formerly owned by Calvin & Elena Cornehl and by Hazel Grow to be surplus to the City’s needs. 2. Pursuant to AMC 3.70.020, the buildings may be sold pursuant to private sale or disposed of in a manner determined by city staff to be the most cost effective. APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 15th day of November, 2010. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney