Executive/Council Action Form (ECAF)
ITEM TITLE:
Title
Motion 24-527, concerning the County Council's position on a proposed direct petition method annexation to the City of Monroe; BRB File No. 2024-04 - Monroe 30 Annexation
body
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development Services
ORIGINATOR: Eileen Canola
EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: Ken Klein 12/11/24
PURPOSE: To approve a motion concerning the City of Monroe’s, Monroe 30 Annexation
BACKGROUND: The City submitted a second Notice of Intention (NOI) to the BRB for the Monroe 30 Annexation on November 20, 2024, and the BRB deemed it sufficient on November 27, 2024 with BRB file no. 2024-04. The first NOI the City submitted to the BRB (file no. 2024-03) was withdrawn to allow time for the City and County to negotiate an interlocal agreement specific for the Monroe 30 Annexation. The BRB’s 45-day review period of BRB file no. 2024-04 ends on January 13, 2025. The City and County lack an existing Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement (MAILA) to govern annexations. The 2008 MAILA expired December 31, 2022. Therefore, the City and County have negotiated an interlocal agreement (ILA) specific to the Monroe 30 Annexation. The City Council reviewed the ILA and on November 19, 2024, and it was subsequently signed by the City Mayor on December 6, 2024. The County Council is scheduled to review the ILA on January 8, 2025. It is anticipated that the ILA will be in effect prior to the effective date of the Monroe 30 Annexation. The County expects minimal general fund impact as the County considered fiscal impacts of potential annexation during its review of the ILA for this annexation. The Monroe 30 Annexation, BRB File No. 2024-04, could have more practical boundaries as noted by the comments provided by the TES division of DPW in Section 2 of the PDS staff report. These comments also state that some of the concerns raised by TES are being addressed by the interlocal agreement that was negotiated between the City and County specific to this annexation. Based on the review detailed in the PDS staff report, the proposed annexation with, the interlocal agreement in effect, is consistent with the GMA, the CPPs, and local comprehensive plans, the factors and objectives of the BRB, and will have minimal impact to County budget and services. The Monroe 30 Annexation proposal, with an effective interlocal agreement, furthers the GMA goals and CPP policies that cities should be the primary providers of urban services. The recommendation to the County Council is to support the annexation and not invoke the jurisdiction of the BRB
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
|
EXPEND: FUND, AGY, ORG, ACTY, OBJ, AU |
CURRENT YR |
2ND YR |
1ST 6 YRS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
REVENUE: FUND, AGY, ORG, REV, SOURCE |
CURRENT YR |
2ND YR |
1ST 6 YRS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
DEPARTMENT FISCAL IMPACT NOTES: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT INFORMATION:
|
ORIGINAL |
|
CONTRACT# |
|
AMOUNT |
|
|
AMENDMENT |
|
CONTRACT# |
|
AMOUNT |
|
Contract Period
|
ORIGINAL |
START |
|
END |
|
|
AMENDMENT |
START |
|
END |
|
OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW/COMMENTS: Reviewed/approved by: Finance (Nathan Kennedy 12/11/24)