Annexation Update

Document Sample
Annexation Update Powered By Docstoc
					     Draft – For Discussion Only

 1                                   Annexation Update
 2                                         June 30, 2008

 5   Purpose
 6   Bring City Council up-to-date on major activities in support of annexation of MUGA and
 7   seek Council concurrence regarding decisions for direction of staff efforts.

 9   Summary
10   For the MUGA annexations, staff is moving forward on three major efforts:
12          Annexation agreements with affected agencies;
13          Annexation Fiscal Study (Berk Associates); and
14          Public Outreach.
15          Focusing initial annexation effort on a portion of the MUGA
16   Staff efforts and associated meeting-time with the City Council is expected to increase
17   substantially over the next five months, leading to a decision on a Resolution of Intent to
18   Annex in November. It is essential that the Council be kept informed as to progress and
19   issues concerning annexations. Their impact upon the City will be major and we must
20   operate within limited timeframes in accordance with State law. Current and future City
21   residents and business community also have a major stake in the outcome. Regular
22   updates with the Council will be scheduled.
24   Independent of the major push to initiate annexations prior to 2010, annexation of the two
25   unincorporated islands (Maple Precinct and Perrinville) is also moving forward, with
26   Council action on annexing Maple Precinct expected in Sept-Oct 2008 and on Perrinville
27   in early 2009.

29   Island Annexation – Maple Precinct
30      First public meeting was held in April
31               o Major discussion points: sewer service, reasons for City initiative, taxes
32      Second public meeting scheduled for July 9
33               o Focus on prior major discussion points
34      Preparing for Council action in Sept-Oct, then submission to Boundary Review Board
35       (BRB).
36      If BRB concurs, back to Council for action; no election required, but residents
37       opposed to annexation may trigger referendum on Council approval of annexation.
38       (Annexation of small, unincorporated islands is handled under a different set of
39       procedures than are annexations of larger areas.)

     D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\eee6efd3-72d9-42bd-8e11-177882c857c8.doc                               Page
     Draft – For Discussion Only

41   Island Annexation – Perrinville
42      Staff met twice with owner (single ownership)
43      No major concerns identified.
44      New building is under construction – owner asked to delay annexation until building
45       is complete.
46              o Less confusion for staff, as transferring responsibility for inspection
47                  during construction can cause confusion and/or delay construction.
48      Following approval of new building (late 2008), Council action will be scheduled

50   MUGA Annexation
51   Annexation Agreements
52      County (Master Annexation Agreement) – Discussion underway – no major issues at
53       this point on the content of the ILA. It purpose is to provide for the smooth transition
54       of services and obligations. However, County PDS staff has created two potential
55       roadblocks. Staff is attempting to work the issue but it may well require intervention
56       by City electeds working with the County Council to redirect County staff. The first
57       issue is that the County refuses to recognize the City’s expanded 2007 MUGA lines
58       and believes that they must be approved by the County Council and/or SCT. Staff
59       has a potential interim solution for this problem. The second issue is that PDS is
60       determined to use the ILA as a hammer to force the City’s to coordinate elimination
61       of MUGA gaps and overlaps to their satisfaction as a condition of having the ILA
62       processed... County staff, however, currently in discussion with county council over
63       extent to which negotiation of ILA’s is dependent upon resolution of MUGA “gap”
64       and “overlap” issues.
65      Fire District 1 (Transition of Services) – Over a year of discussions; scope has ranged
66       from multi-station on-going operating agreement to creating a regional fire authority
67       to transfer of station(s) affected by annexation. The Council has already been briefed
68       on progress. If the negotiations fail to reach a successful conclusion in the near
69       future, the City will need to develop a plan to “grow” Lynnwood Fire into the MUGA
70       by hiring staff and taking the City’s share of the District’s assets in accordance with
71       state law.
72      Mukilteo (MUGA Boundary) – Mukilteo is taking a second run at annexation,
73       proposing to use the petition method this time. The City is pulling back their
74       annexation boundaries to 148th St and the west side of SR 99, which would eliminate
75       many of Lynnwood’s concerns. However, there is some evidence that the City may
76       be encouraging residents of the Meadowdale Gap, south of 148th, to circulate their
77       own petitions to annex into Mukilteo.
78      Mill Creek (MUGA Boundary) – Not much progress on resolving “overlap” area to
79       date. Staff will initiate a new round of meetings after July 4. Mill Creek staff has
80       indicated current workload constraints mean discussion of resolving overlap will
81       begin in July 2008.
82      Edmonds (MUGA Boundary) – Edmonds approached the City with an annexation
83       petition for about 44 homes located south of Lunds Gulch in our MUGA – staff

     D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\eee6efd3-72d9-42bd-8e11-177882c857c8.doc                                Page
      Draft – For Discussion Only

 84       briefed the Council on this matter earlier this year. Staff believes that it may make
 85       sense to support this action in exchange for a recognition that homes with Edmonds
 86       addresses located north of Lunds Gulch, are slated to annex into Lynnwood and
 87       allowing Lynnwood to annex the few remaining parcels associated with the southern
 88       edge of Lunds Gulch.

 90   Annexation Fiscal Study
 91   Berk Associates uses “drivers” calibrated to current City services to project staffing and
 92   costs to provide City services in MUGA.
 93   Study well underway; lots of time/effort by City staff (data collection and synthesis) and
 94   Berk Associates (understanding City data and calibrating fiscal model).
 95   Scheduled to have preliminary results ready for discussion with Council in September.

 97   Public Outreach
 98   Inside Lynnwood being mailed to entire MUGA. The past two issues contained articles
 99   on annexation, Lynnwood’s plans and answers to typical questions. People are
100   encouraged to call Community Development if they want more information in advance of
101   the formal outreach effort and many have done so. A special annexation newsletter will
102   be published late summer\early fall featuring articles about annexation. Public response
103   has generally been favorable.
104   Series of community meetings programmed for late Sept – Oct (following completion of
105   fiscal study).
106   Materials are also being posted on City web site.

108   Items for Council Concurrence
109   Geography for MUGA Annexations
110   Annexing entire MUGA would more than double City population (see separate memo).
111   State requirement (for sales tax rebate incentive): annexation area must be contiguous
112   with city, internally contiguous and minimum population of 10,000.
113   County (and others) continue not to recognize 2007 Amendments to Lynnwood MUGA
114   and are creating issues over existing MUGA overlaps between Lynnwood and Mill
115   Creek.
116   Focus current (2010) efforts on “core MUGA” (pre-2007 boundary) – Implement a
117   longer-term time horizon for Meadowdale Gap, North Road and (possibly) Lake Stickney
118   in next few years.
119   For MUGA, initial concept: split into two annexation areas: West of SR 525 and east of
120   SR 525.

      D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\eee6efd3-72d9-42bd-8e11-177882c857c8.doc                              Page
      Draft – For Discussion Only

121   Delete Meadow Road area from current consideration – boundary divides Martha Lake
122   and existing neighborhood and is not consistent with State annexation criteria.

124   Schedule for MUGA Annexations
125      Next City Council work session: mid-August
126      Fiscal Study initial results: mid-September
127      Public Outreach Meetings: late Sept. – Oct.
128      Fiscal Study final results: mid-October
129      First zoning hearing: October 13
130      Second zoning hearing and action on Resolution of Intent: November 24
131      Informational Public Meetings (Feb-March, 2009)
132      Annexation Election: May, 2009 (or August 2009)
133      Annexation Effective: Late 2009

135   Land Use Plan for MUGA
136      Need to accommodate population and employment growth allocations.
137      Start with County land use plan map and revise to limit density in single family
138       neighborhoods.
139      Retain Urban Centers and prepare area plans following annexation.

      D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\eee6efd3-72d9-42bd-8e11-177882c857c8.doc                        Page

Shared By: