Loading...
2006, 10-10 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 102 " meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Schimmels MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday October 10, 2006 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Attorney Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Dave Johnson of Valley United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Schimmels. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Denenny: reported that he attended the Executive Meeting with the Health Care District where they discussed personnel issues. Deputy Mayor Taylor: stated that last Thursday he attended a Community Indicators Website meeting at Eastern Washington University where they discussed various types of benchmark statistics regarding over 100 public policy indicators that affect our county; and that this week he attended the National League of Cities Energy Environmental Natural Resources Steering Committee meeting in Phoenix. Councilmember Gothmann: said that he attended the Pines Corridor Meeting which was well attended; that he regretted not being able to attend the community meeting, but was informed there were excellent presentations that he suggested be placed on Channel 5; he attended the Government Affairs Meeting where they discussed topics for the year; and he mentioned that the SNAP committee moved forward so they can become like a type of financial institution and lend money on low cost projects. Councilmember Munson: reported that he attended the Transit Authority Operations and Administrative Meeting; that he traveled to Seattle last week for the Association of Washington Cities Board of Directors meeting where they discussed Initiative 933. Councilmember Munson mentioned that he will attend a Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 meeting November 9 in Seattle as part of the Legislative Committee for Land Use to decide what to do next depending on the outcome of the vote on Initiative 933. Councilmember DeVleming: mentioned that he attended last week's Conversation with the Community; and that the Student Advisory Council voted to amend their by -laws so that will be coming to Council in the near future. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended this afternoon's Rotary Meeting, which included a presentation on the Sprague Appleway Corridor; she attended Good Samaritan's 50 Anniversary; the Benchmarking program at Eastern Washington University; and a water conference in Coeur d'Alene. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gail Stiltner, 10119 E 44 —' Avenue: spoke regarding the off -road vehicle ordinance; she said that this is not a request for changes, but she wanted to share a philosophical view about this; she stated she feels she would prefer a minimalist approach as opposed to the broad and sweeping approach; and that she feels the ordinance did not address the real issues of noise and/or trespass; that she feels there are various approaches which could be tried to alleviate the situation as everyone wants the ability to enjoy a peaceful neighborhood; and she asked Council to keep these ideas in mind on future ordinances; she added that this is not a personal issue as she was not involved in the situation; but would like to see ordinances and legislative activity further fine - tuned. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2007 Proposed Budget — Ken Thompson Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and invited Finance Director Thompson to give his overview of the 2007 Proposed Budget. Director Thompson gave the budget highlights and proposed changes, and added that the last budget hearing for the 2007 budget is scheduled for October 24. In response to council's question concerning the $1.6 million the County was going to give to the City for pools, Mr. Mercier said that the Board of County Commissioners today authorized reimbursement of that in pool expenditures for the Valley; that they will keep the funds in their account and draw the interest earned by those funds, but the $1.6 million will be available to us on a reimbursable basis. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Initiative 933 — Mike Connelly Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. and invited City Attorney Connelly to the podium. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is a public hearing on Initiative 933, which the City is holding per RCW 42.17.130 which allows the City Council to express a collective opinion or to vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, or ordinance in support or opposition to a ballot proposition provided notice of the meeting is provided and members of Council and of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity to express opposing and supporting views. Mr. Connelly read the ballot title, and then extended appreciation to intern Erik Lamb for his assistance in gathering the materials included under tonight's agenda item #5, which include three articles in support of the initiative, and three not in support. Mr. Connelly said that if passed, the financial impact of the initiative is uncertain, and that cost estimates provided from the Office of Financial Management are also part of tonight's agenda materials. Mr. Connelly said that this is not an eminent domain issue, as the State of Washington does not allow eminent domain to be used. Brief Council discussion followed including mention of affects on our sign code and the nuisance ordinances regulating junk cars; federal requirements such as protection of wetlands; and imposing regulations and/or facing sanctions. Attorney Connelly stated that all use regulations would be impacted, but the benchline date for allowed or not allowed compensation is January 1996. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Claim Voucher List 09- 25 -06; Vouchers 9978 - 10050; total amount: $352,657.15 b. Payroll for Period Ending September 30 2006: $217,645.19 c. Minutes of September 14, 2006 Council/Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting d. Minutes of September 26, 2006, Regular Council Meeting e. Minutes of October 3, 2006 Council Study Session Meeting It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 4. Motion Consideration: Amendment to JUB Contract for Street MasterPlan for Street Development Standards- Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to approve the contract amendment to JUB Engineers, Inc in the amount of $135,121 and authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the contract. Councilmember Munson disclosed that although he is a friend of the local manager of JUB, they have never discussed any City business. Public Works Director Kersten explained that this is in follow up to the briefing Council received October 3, 2006; that in order to accomplish the task of updating the existing Spokane County Road and Sewer Construction Standards, along with developing the street masterplan, staff proposes contracting an amendment to the JUB Engineers contract; and that the $135,121 could be funded with $90,000 from the General Fund, $100,000 in development related fees, and $45,000 from the Street Fund. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Initiative 933 — Mike Connelly Attorney Connelly again stated that there were several documents in support of and in opposition to the initiative, which were provided to Council in tonight's council packet; that there is no basis on which to form an opinion as to any possible financial impact; and that while Council is statutorily permitted to express an opinion on the initiative, the City Attorney is not. Council discussed points in favor and in opposition to the initiative; that they could take a position either way, or no position at all. Deputy Mayor Taylor suggested not taking a position as there are too many unknown factors, and such a position would be premature. Councilmember Munson stated his view that Council should take a position not to support the initiative, as the City and its citizens cannot afford it; Councilmember Gothmann agreed with Councilmember Munson. Further discussion included letting the citizens decide for themselves and not get involved; too many unknowns; the regulations were not formally written; that the City can't afford to support such a proposition; that the law is poorly written; the courts add to the problem in interpretation of the laws; and compensation issues. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded, that the Council take a position of opposing Initiative 933. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Denenny, DeVleming, Gothmann, and Munson. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Councilmember Munson said he respects Deputy Mayor Taylor's position; and Deputy Mayor Taylor remarked that he feels Council needs to be very cautions in endorsing or opposing particular measures that are up to the public to decide. 6. Mayoral Appointments: Salary Commission Members — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite reported that she recommends the following be appointed to the Salary Commission: Frankie DeWitt, Jim Huttenmaier, Robert Lamed, Gail Stiltner, and Diane Tortorelli. It was then moved by Councilmember Munson to approve the Mayor's recommended appointments. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 6a. Motion Consideration: Morningside Mitigation Agreement — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that the Vistas at Morningside Heights is a project being developed by Summit Properties; that the project will contribute increased traffic volumes to Barker Road resulting in lowed levels of service; that this agreement specifies the details of payment that would occur when the signal warrants are met in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises; and that the developer's contribution is $40,097. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded, to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement with Summit Properties, Inc. After brief discussion on the improvements needed in and around the intersection, Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS . Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: said there was construction or repair going on this afternoon around 2:00 p.m. westbound on Sprague Avenue east of Pines forcing Sprague to be reduced to one lane; and that traffic was backed up past McDonald. Mr. Behm said there were no traffic controls to help the situation, and no way for one to get off Sprague without performing a U -turn; and that perhaps these things could be scheduled at times other than peak afternoon times. Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Ideas — Greg McCormick Planning Manager McCormick gave a report on the potential Community Development Block Grant projects which will be addressed at Council's October 24 public hearing; and that the three projects being developed for full -width paving include Spaldings Sewer Project, Grandview Acres Sewer Project, and Trentwood Sewer Project; and that staff is open for other potential projects to consider. Mr. McCormick briefly explained each project, including its location and possibility of having each project funded. Mr. McCormick mentioned he will have maps available at the October 24 meeting showing the specific areas. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that there is also a vacancy on the Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee; that staff has advertised the vacancy but there have been no applications to date; and she encouraged people who might be interested, to please apply. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the committee meets about once a month for nine months, with meetings held at 4:00 p.m. the fourth week of the month. 8. Uniform Development Code Titles 17 General Provisions (aka Title 11); and Title 18 Boards & Authorities (aka Title 12) — Marina Sukup Planning Manager McCormick explained that this is the first Council touch on the latest draft provisions of the Uniform Development Code; that these titles have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, including conducting public hearings on the titles, and the Planning Commission passed a motion to now forward these to Council for their review. Mr. McCormick then gave background information on titles 17 and 18. In response to Council question, Mr. McCormick said that if Initiative 933 passes, it likely will have little impact on these titles, but could have impact on future titles dealing with zoning and environmental controls; and that some sections might need changes. 9. Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained the proposed changes to the fee resolution, which include deleting the blasting permit fee, increasing the stormwater fee from $20 to $21, and updating development fees, adding that this item will come before council for final consideration November 14. Council discussion ensued regarding the proposed increase in plat fees, with staff responding that the fees are based on cost recovery. City Manager Mercier stated that determination of recovering fees is a process of successive approximation; that there is little history; but stated there are a number of transactions which are in flux Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 year to year which have an impact on unit costs and also the functional capacity to deliver service. Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that these fees are relative to the work in Public Works, that they changed the process from averaging costs as opposed to billing people after the fact, and that as the issue was examined further, staff realized they were not fully incorporating Public Works including the engineering, development inspector, and the traffic engineer; adding that staff has proposed changing the .4 construction inspector to a full -time inspector; and that none of these costs were reflected in the original costs. Deputy Mayor Taylor continued to express his concern with these increases, stating he feels it is too large an increase for this year and that he would like to see these figures come back later. Mayor Wilhite stated that she would like to see what other communities are charging. Mr. Mercier said staff can assemble comparable data, but it is difficult to find exact comparables. Councilmember DeVleming stated he would like more of an explanation of what has changed from the first fees. Mr. Mercier said that Ms. Regor will write down the elements of expense she mentioned this evening that were not previously covered in the original cost and in this proposed budget, including the two positions related to these activities. 10. General Budget Discussion — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier said that there have been some changes to present to insert in the budget, including adding another FTE position, that of administrative assistant at CenterPlace; that when the original Performa was drafted, the anticipated position for CenterPlace was a coordinator; but it was determined they needed more operating experience, and the idea was to experiment at a potentially lower cost, thus adding the administrative assistant position; that Mr. Jackson and Ms. Regor are working on how to segregate CenterPlace responsibilities. Mr. Mercier said that he would like to run an experiment for a year or so at that particular level; that unless otherwise directed by council, there will be some changes in responsibility, and that he will bring back updated pages to insert in the proposed budget. In response to Council questions about the position, Mr. Mercier explained that if successful, we would be spreading responsibility differently with the goal to timely satisfy all customer inquiries, have an additional person who can show perspective renters the building at any time, as opposed to the current situation where we only have 50% capability; to have that position more responsible to inquiries; and to also have cross - training with others administrative tasks. Mr. Mercier said that if we can respond appropriately to customer inquiries; the success would be operating the building at a lower staff cost than originally thought; but to evaluate the position over the next few years; and maybe then de -fund one position or another. Council indicated they were willing to examine the proposal. Mr. Mercier said the next budget issue deals with the difficulty in the street fund budget; that the multi- year financial forecast projected a deficit in the street fund in 2009; and the last Council conversation discussed alternatives to push that deficit into the future; that we are still faced with the forecast of the 2009 deficit, but staff has proposed two scenarios: one is to have the deficit appear in 2010, and the other is it appears in 2011. Council /staff discussion included mention of the snow removal history being less than anticipated; raising the snow level to five inches in flat residential areas; possible street repair cutbacks in fixing potholes, etc; implementing other revenue sources; and waiting until the Street MasterPlan is completed to determine if other revenue sources are necessary. It was Council consensus to proceed with option #2: adjust the 2007 expenditure levels consistent with the 2010 model. 11. Setting Date for Winter Retreat — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier mentioned he previously asked Councilmembers for preferred retreat dates, and learned that January 6 and 13 should be avoided. After brief discussion, it was determined to hold the winter retreat January 27, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at CenterPlace, with the exact room to be determined later as it was mentioned the conference room might not have the best acoustics and setting for this group. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation until approximately 9:00 p.m.; and that Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 upon return to open session, no decision will be made. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:15 p.m. At 8:54 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: ris one : ainbridge, v ty Clerk \,(Aim, l&xit Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 10 -10 -06 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 10 -24 -06 i • :I �a X N��' / Wda a. v aloe TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU wahNi '' C ruset , . ADDRESS NAME PLEASE PRINT TELEPHONE WILL , ►:\ 5-i-:1i-,, © U e‘,;c \•Q_ ( 0 ct 9 e 44 R1 - (,D 43 filEGIERMIIIIMINVIMMINMERSink SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 10, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO TFIRFE MINUTES • • ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON Cu, iES Initiative 933 Advisory September 2006 On February 8 of this year, the Washington State Farm Bureau filed final language with the Secretary of State's office for their so -called "Property Fairness Initiative." (http: //www.secstate.wa.gov/ elections /initiatives /text/i933.pdf) . The Initiative Title As It Would Appear On the Ballot: Association of Washington Cities 1- 933.Advisory . October 09, 2006 The following is intended to present possible interpretations of the initiative, with the understanding that additional interpretations are likely to emerge over the coming months. TO: Councilmembers Dept Heads City Manager Deity City Ma ger Legal. From Rich Munson . "This measure would compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that existing legal uses of private property, and would provide ,exceptions or pay . cents." This advisory was prepared to: • Assist city_and town officials in better understanding the possible interpretations of I -933; and • Alert you to the need to begin considering how your city or town would comply if it qualifies ballot and became law.. What Does Initiative 933 Mean? �• 3 .. r - There is much disagreemetit about What it means; although the basic idea is that • government should. not •restrictthe use of private property without paying for the decline in value of property resulting from governmental restrictions; no natter how small that decline in value might be. Proponents and opponents have already begun to portray its scope and impacts differently. Because of what many,consider, to vague and ambiguous language, it is likely that, should the initiative become law, its scope will be defined by the courts. What seems to be clear, however, is that the initiative, if passed, will have a fundamental impact on'how the state and cures, towns and counties iegulate land use. September 2006 • • • Page 1 • • Overview of Initiative 933 • Section 1 (Purpose and Findings) is a statement of intent. It should have no operative effect, but it may be used to assist in interpreting the remaining provisions in the initiative. • Section 2 (Consideration of Impact and Definitions) o Subsection (1) of this section establishes a process requiring agencies, ' "prior to enacting or adopting any ordinance,. regulation or rule which may damage the use or value of private property," to consider and document many issues, including the governmental purpose of the proposed action, the connection between the purpose and the action, the potential impacts of the proposed action on the uses of private property, less restrictive alternatives, and the estimated compensation that may need to be paid. o Subsection (2) defines key terms: "private property," which is defined broadly as all real and personal property; "damaging•the use or value "; and "compensation." • Section 3 (Compensation or Waiver):' Phis section would . require that any • • .governmental agency seeking to enforce or apply a regulation of private property that would result in "damaging the use or value" of such property must pay compensation for that damage in advance. In the alternatis e, - the state or local governmental agency may, where'it already has authority to do simply refrain from taking such action sand thereby avoid liability. • Section 4 (No Fee for Seeking Waiver): State or local governmental agencies are not permitted to charge any fee for considering whether to waive or grant a variance from a regulation to avoid.liability for compensation. • - Section 5 Aniendments)c Development regulations adopted under provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) can't prohibit'uses legally - existing prior to their adoption. . ' • The remaining provisions (Sections 6 through 10) are miscellaneous provisions concerning interpretation and effect. • Answers or potential answers to some of the questions being raised about I -933's impacts on cities and towns. Such answers are based upon discussions with a variety.. Of technical and legal experts 'and a review of a number of1- -933 analyses available to A WC staff by early May 2006. •. - Section 2: Consideration of Impact and Definitions Q1: How I -933 affect critical areas regulations that all cities . and towns were -• • required by the GMA to adopt and impleinent? (For how'it'irnpacls zoning and other regulations, please see Q 3 -4.) A: 1-933 appears to affect adoption of critical areas regulations in tWo ways. First, by defining "damaging the use or value" to'specifically include "[p]rohibiting or restricting any use, or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of.Janu ry Association of Washington Cities I -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 2 1, 1996" — cities and counties will not be able to apply or enforce critical area provisions adopted or amended since 1/1/96 that impose greater restrictions on the use of property without first compensating property owners for any decline in property value. Second, it defines "damaging the use or value" to include "[r]equiring a portion of property to be left in its natural state .or without beneficial use to its owner, unless necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health and safety." (Emphasis added.) Many critical. areas regulations prohibit development in certain environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep slopes or wetlands or in buffer areas around streams. Consequently, local governments will be required to compensate property owners before applying or enforcing such regulations, regardless of when they were adopted, or they would have to waive such regulations (if they have the authority to do so). While these types of regulations, required by the GMA, are based on long -term public health and safety concerns such as preventing landslides or protecting the critical ecological functions of wetlands and streams, it is unlikely that they would be considered "necessary to prevent inunediate harm to human health and safety." Q2: All and towns are required.by the GMA to review and update, if necessary, their required GIViA plans and regulations every 7 years. Does revisiting them trigger new obligations under 1 -933? A: At least for the GMA review process, that is not likely. Section 2(1) requires an agency to consider and document a series of listed factors "prior to enacting or adopting" an ordinance or regulation that may damage the use or value of private property. That section does not require a city or town to engage in that process prior to "reviewing" or "considering" whether to amend a plan or regulation. A city or town should be free, under this language, to review whether comprehensive plan or development regulation amendments are needed, without engaging in I -933's study requirements. Also, since a comprehensive plan, unlike the development regulations that implement it, does not itself regulate the use of property, actions to review and amend a plan would not trigger 1 -933 requirements. However, if a city or town decides to proceed with amending its development regulations in response to its GMA-mandated review, then it would need to follow the "consider and document" requirements in section 2(1). Q3: What impacts will 1 -933 have on basic land use regulations in cities, either adopted prior to or since 1/1/96? A: Those regulations that prohibit or restrict "any use or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996" may be applied and enforced only with compensation to affected property owners for any reduction in property value. So, I- 933 will affect not only how cities might regulate land use in the future, it will also directly affect how and to what extent they will enforce land use laws they have already adopted. Association of Washington Cities -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 3 Other specified types of land use restrictions that may require compensation are not subject to the January 1, 1996 limitation, such as requiring any portion of property to be left in its natural state and prohibiting the maintenance or removal of trees or vegetation. The scope of other land use restrictions subject to the pay or waive requirement is Tess clear. For example, a local government cannot, without compensation, prohibit "actions by a private property owner reasonably necessary to prevent or mitigate harm from fire, flooding, erosion, or other natural disasters or conditions that would impair the use or value of private property." See Section 2(b)(iv). How will it be determined what actions are "reasonably necessary" to prevent or mitigate those disasters or conditions? Q4: Is there agreement on what land use actions by local governments are exempt from the compensation or waive requirements? A: No, there is much room for interpretation as to what is exempt under Section 2(2)(c), and the exemptions raise additional questions as to the initiative's scope. This exemption section states that "damaging the use or value" of property does not include "restrictions that apply equally to all property subject to the agency's jurisdiction." However, that section then includes specific examples of restrictions that are exempt, even though cities might not apply them equally to all property within a jurisdiction. For example, the exemptions include those that limit "the location or operation of sex offender housing or adult entertainment." Cities that regulate adult entertainment generally limit them to certain zones, so it would appear that those restrictions don't "apply equally" to all property within those cities. So, this raises the issue of what is meant by "apply equally." Building height restrictions aren't normally the same in residentially and commercially zoned areas and may vary within each. Do they have to be the same everywhere in a city to avoid compensation for greater restrictions enacted after 1/1/96? It would appear so. The initiative exempts regulations that restrict the use of property "when necessary to prevent an immediate threat to human health and safety," yet it does not define what is meant by "immediate." Does this mean that cities cannot regulate common nuisances such as junk vehicles,•which may not present such an "immediate" threat to public health and safety, without compensation? The exemptions also include matters that do not affect the use of private property, such as "worker health and safety laws" and "wage and hour laws," and regulations adopted by the federal government, such as "chemical use restrictions that have been adopted by the United States environmental protection agency." Such exemptions suggest a very broad scope to the initiative. In short, the exemptions identified in Section 2(2)(c) raise many questions as to what • regulation 1 -933 applies to. Association of Washington Cities 1 -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 4 V Q5: What local ordinances, regulations or rules may damage the use or value of private property? A: It appears that the list of regulations, beyond those specifically identified, that "may" damage the use of value of private property would be very broad. Because the specific list of laws identified in section 2(2)(b) as "damaging the use or value" is not exclusive, property owners clearly may claim that regulations in addition to those specifically listed require compensation (or waiver) if such regulations fit this narrative definition. Since the definition of "damaging the use or value" includes subjective language such as "the cost of which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as whole," it is difficult to identify specific examples of regulations that may meet this definition. Q6: Eight new cities have incorporated in Washington since 1/1/96 — .1Jdgewood, Lakewood, Maple Valley, Covington, Kenmore, Sammamish, Liberty Lake, and Spokane Valley. Does 1-933 impact planning and zoning in new cities any differently from other cities? A: Cities that incorporated after January 1, 1996 will be impacted differently than other cities by section 2(2)(b)(i), because that provision exempts regulations that prohibit or restrict "any use, or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996." All of these eight cities' land use regulations were enacted after that date, so, to the extent that those cities' regulations are more restrictive than their counties' regulations that were in effect on that date, they cannot be enforced or applied without compensation Q7: In addition to cities, towns-and counties, what other "agencies" would be required to consider and document various factors before "enacting or adopting any ordinance, regulation or rule which may damage the use or value of private property" within cities and towns? For instance, is the state legislature included? Individual state agencies? A: Most certainly, individual state agencies that adopt regulations or rules impacting private property would be required to adhere to these requirements.. As with many of the questions raised by 1 -933, arguments could be made on both sides of the issue on whether it applies to certain actions of the .Legislature. The answer likely depends on whether a court determines (1) that the legislature is an "agency," and (2) that the legislature adopts "ordinances, regulations, or rules." Q8: How does 1 -933 affect a city or town's obligations to adopt and enforce Shorelines Management Act (S plans and regulations as mandated by state law? A: -A local government cannot, without compensation, enforce an SMA regulation that falls within the "damage" definition of section 2(2)(b)(ii). This definition specifically includes matters within the purview of SMA regulations = "[p]rohibiting the continued Association of Washington Cities 1 -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 5 operation, maintenance, replacement, or repair of existing tidegates, bulkheads, revetments, or other infrastructure reasonably necessary for the protection of the use or value of private property." This appears to apply regardless of how long ago prohibitions were enacted. Other matters within SMA jurisdiction, beyond those specifically identified, may also require compensation to enforce. However, absent court interpretation or legislative clarification, it isn't clear whether a local government would have the option to waive enforcement of state - mandated and approved regulations like those adopted under the SMA. Q9: Would I -933 affect the authority of local governments to impose temporary moratoria ( "time outs ") on and use actions? A: I -933 is unclear on this point. Section 5 prohibits a local government from adopting GMA regulations that "prohibit uses legally existing on any parcel prior to their • adoption." While a moratorium does not strictly prohibit any uses, it may prevent property owners for a period of time from applying for a permitted use. A property may claim that the effect is the same, albeit temporary, and that a moratorium may not be adopted. With respect to moratoria adopted under laws other than the GMA, I -933's compensation provisions do not specify that the prohibitions must be permanent. As such, courts might determine that temporary moratoria are allowed, but would likely have to specify under what circumstances. Q10: Section 2(2)(c)(i) includes in the list of regulations that are exempt from the . compensation requirement regulations "Ir]estricting the use of property when necessary to prevent an immediate threat to human health and safety." What is an "immediate" threat? A: The answer is not clear. If a court were to use the dictionary definition, then this • exemption would only narrowly apply to regulations necessary to prevent a threat to human health and safety that was occurring or was about to occur in the very near future. Regulations to prevent a direct discharge of contamination into a drinking water source, for example, would probably qualify. But whether regulations concerning longer -term threats, such as regulations for septic systems or the siting and operation of a landfill, would be exempt is unclear. Q11: Section 2(2)(c)(ii) exempts regulations "[r]equiring compliance with structural standards for buildings in building or fire codes to prevent harm from earthquakes, flooding, fire, or other natural disasters." Does this mean that any building code regulation that does not have to do with preventing "harm from earthquakes, flooding, fire, or other natural disasters" and that was not in place on January 1, 1996, cannot be enforced unless a city pays to do so? Association of Washington Cities I -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 6 A: The answer to this question will depend on how the courts interpret the "apply equally" criterion, as discussed in Q4 above. If section 2(2)(c) is interpreted to exempt from the compensation requirements all regulations that "apply equally to all property subject to the agency's jurisdiction," not just the ones listed; and if "apply equally" is interpreted to mean treating similarly- situated property equally, then cities and town may still be able to apply equally post -1996 structural standards in building or fire codes that are not designed to prevent harm from natural disasters. Of course, since the state building code requires cities to enforce these codes, they may have no choice but to enforce them. Section 3 — Compensation and Waiver Q:1: When does the compensation requirement in section 3 apply? What does it mean for a city or town to "decide to enforce or apply" a regulation? A: Compensation is required under section 3 of 1 -933 if an agency "decides to enforce or apply" a regulation that would result in damaging the use or value of prorate property. If the agency "chooses not to take action," it is not liable for compensation. This language appears to.give agencies the option to "waive," or not apply, the offending regulation and thereby avoid compensation. However, unlike Oregon's Measure 37, which clearly provides agencies with authority to waive laws (no compensation has been paid in Oregon on any claim to date), 1 -933 is ambiguous as to whether it provides waiver authority or whether it simply acknowledges that an agency may already have waiver authority in the laws it administers. Q2: Would compensation be required under section 3 whether or not a development permit is being sought for a specific piece of property? A: Yes, if the city or town is affirmatively choosing to "enforce or apply" the law. Section 3's compensation requirement is triggered if an agency "decides to enforce or apply" an offending regulation. if a property owner does not apply for a permit, and the agency does not seek to enforce the law, the compensation requirement is not triggered. Q3: When would .the state or agencies be liable for compensation for regulations applicable in cities? A: If the regulation is purely local, that is, it is not adopted pursuant to state statute or regulation, the state or state agencies would likely not be liable for compensation. What is not clear, however, is whether the state bears some responsibility for compensation if the local law is adopted pursuant to a state law requirement. For example, many cities and towns are required to adopt and enforce plans and regulations under the Shorelines Management Act (SMA). Those plans and regulations must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology prior to local implementation. GMA plans and regulations are required at the local level, but aren't Association of Washington Cities 1 -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 7 reviewed and approved by the state. Whether those differences are significant enough to make a case for a finding of an agency relationship is unknown. Q4: What liability might a city incur if it decides to waive (not enforce) a regulation mandated by the state or federal governments in order to avoid compensation? A: Good question! Again, we are not sure. Q5: What liability might a city inctir if it waives a regulation and the activity resulting from that waiver damages adjoining property? A: This gets into areas of law dealing with negligence. It isn't clear how this would sort out and it likely depends on how courts ultimately interpret the so- called "pay or waive" provisions of I -933, should it be enacted. Q6: If needed, how is the amount of compensation determined? Section 2(2)(d) of 1 -993 defines "compensation" as "remuneration equal to the amount the fair market value of the affected property has been decreased by the application or enforcement of the ordinance, regulation, or rule." Therefore, governments will have to pay for the decrease in fair market value caused by the regulation. It also includes attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the property owner in seeking to enforce I -933. How one determines whether, and to what extent, a land use regulation decreases fair market value is a,complex matter. Further, section 2(2)(d) states that to the extent any portion of the property is required to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use by its owner, the amount of compensation due would be the fair market value of the portion of property required to be left in its natural state. Section 5 - GMA AMENDMENTS Q1: Section 5 is the only part of 1 -933 that specifically amends the Growth Management Act. What does this section mean and how does it differ from section 2(2)(b)(i) (requiring compensation for post - January 1, 1996 regulations)? A: Section 5 of 1 -933 prohibits the adoption of any new GMA development regulations that prohibit uses that legally existed prior to the adoption of the regulation. Section 5 differs from section 2(2)(b)(i) in that it does not allow a local government to adopt such a . regulation and then pay to apply it. Rather, it prohibits the adoption of any_new regulation that prohibits an existing, legal use. Q2: Does section 5 prohibit GM.A cities or towns from making a use nonconforming— allowing its continuation but subjecting it to nonconforming use rules? If not, are legally existing uses then legal in perpetuity? Association of Washington Cities 1 -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 8 A: 1-933 appears to prevent the creation of nonconfoming uses. 1t prohibits changes to GMA regulations that would prohibit existing, legal uses. Since a nonconforming use is only created by virtue of regulations that otherwise prohibit that use, section 5 seems to limit a GMA city or town from creating any new nonconforming uses. Current legal uses would be legal in perpetuity. General Questions Q: Does I -933 affect a city's eminent domain authority? No. Although Section 1, the purpose and intent section, discusses the power of eminent domain, the operative sections do not mention eminent domain authority. Curiously and despite this fact, the proponent's web site identifies three eminent domain actions (one by the state, one by a city, and one by the Seattle Monorail Authority) as the first three examples of "excessive regulations" that have damaged property. Note that the Washington State Constitution does not authorize condemnation of private property for economic development, as was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London to be authorized in certain circumstances under the federal constitution. The Kelo decision has been widely criticized by property rights organizations. In closing... As more information becomes available about I -933 — including how individual cities or others are interpreting itsprovisions, AWC will provide updates to cities and towns through our regularly scheduled publications and on our website. If. you have questions or comments on this topic, please feel free to contact AWC's Dave Williams at either (360) 753 -4137 ext. 142 or (e -mail) davew(awcnet.org. Association of Washington Cities I -933 Advisory September 2006 Page 9 The Seattle Times: Local News: Initi9tiv 933 could cost state billions, study says The Seattt=_ Time Company °jesm mcs I LOCAL NEWS Traffic 1 Weather Your account Search Advanced search Horne Local Eastside • Snohomish Co. Politics Education Columnists Nicole Brodeur Danny Westneat David Postman Sherry Grindoland Letter from Washington Inside The Times Here and Now `ion / World siness / Tech Editorials / Opinion Columnists Sports Entertainment Comics 1 Games Living Pacific Northwest Magazine Travel / Outdoors Obituaries Special reports Photography Corrections Archive Alerts / E -mails Real estate Marketplace Jobs Autos' Homes Rentals Classifieds 1 , Shopping NWsource •sonals .t an ad Services Your account Get a great rate that makes saving easy. Thursday, September 21, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM IS E -mail article 8 Print view Seattle Times staff reporter Movies The Everett Clinic More doctors and specialists. ct u r. es 1. k. rna w:+nru wi. LOSS driving and gas. Smile! Initiative 933 could cost state billions, study says By Eric Pryno A statewide property - rights initiative on the November ballot would cost the state, counties and cities S7 billion to $9 billion over the next six years, the state budget office estimated Wednesday. That's enough to replace both the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Highway 520 floating bridge, even by the latest estimates. But that'sky -high cost estimate for Initiative 933, from the Office of Financial Management (OFM), rests on a controversial assumption: It assumes the initiative would require governments to compensate landowners in every case in which 'regulations reduce property values — without the option of waiving the rules. 1 -933 sponsor Dan Wood called that assumption "nonsense." He maintains the initiative would allow such waivers. "The governor has come out against [the initiative]," said Wood, who is also the government- affairs director for the Washington State Farm Bureau. 'These people work for the governor. It's shameful they're using taxpayer money. to oppose the initiative." Even opponents of the measure have characterized it as a "pay or waive" proposal. But 1 -933 doesn't specifically grant governments any new power to waive rules. It only alludes to an existing authority to do so. Arid land -use lawyers, representing a variety of clients, say that authority doesn't extend to regulations adopted to comply with such state laws as the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act, So that leaves compensation as the only alternative, they contend. The OFM reached a similar conclusion after consulting with its attorneys, spokesman Hal Spencer said. If the underlying statute doesn't allow a regulation to be waived, "then governments can't waive it," he said. http: / /seattletimes. nwsource. com/ html/ localnewsJ2003268555 _proprights21m.html Jobs 1 Autos 1 Homes! Rentals 1 HWsource 1 Classifieds 1 seatttetimes.com 1 Restaurants 1 Today's events Marketplace J obs Autos Shopping Homes Rentals: Post an ad ADVGQTIfING NWsource shopping Page 1 of 4 Home delivery Contact us l ?RSS'_ 1 games \ 5 - \ i own .th1e game 'far. no credit card required ' S19.99 value eaIArca Own For �'ree�. Pot:A:led b,.: 9121/2006 The Seattle Times: Local News: Initiative 933 could cost state billions, study says In its fiscal analysis, prepared with help from other state agencies and the Association of Washington Cities, OFM said governments would spend money for new studies 1 -933 requires and for costs associated with processing claims. Contact us Submit listings Send us news tips Seattle Times store Advertise with us RSS feeds Wireless Newspapers In Education Home delivery . o17 .illitl' .:r jr)I' r.s nt.'$'?5 3 r Ma _ The #1 Volume Acura Dealer in Washington 6 years in a row! ACUFL A But those expenses would be minor in comparison with the estimated cost of compensating landowners: $6.8 billion to $7.8 billion over six years. All told, it is estimated 1 -933 would cost state agencies $2 billion to $2.18 billion, cities $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion, and counties $1.49 billion to S1.51 billion. By law, the OFM's "fiscal impact statement" on 1 -933 will be included in the state voters pamphlet. Aaron Toso, spokesman for the No On 933 campaign, said the OFM estimate "validates what we have known all along — that Initiative 933 is going to cost taxpayers billions of dollars." Oregon's experience RDVH47I5I N5 Click Here for factory specials availabto In Western Washington. But Wood said Oregon's experience with Measure 37, a similar property- rights law that voters approved in 2004, undercuts OFM's conclusion. Oregon landowners. have filed nearly 3,000 claims under the law so far, seeking nearly $4 billion in compensation. according to Portland State University. Ninety percent of all the claims governments have reviewed have been deemed valid, and officials have chosen to waive regulations rather than paying in every case. But there's a difference: Measure 37's text clearly authorizes waivers, while Initiative 933 does not. It says only that governments can avoid paying compensation if they don't enforce regulations, and that the initiative "shall not be construed to limit agencies' ability to waive, or issue variances. " The initiative's sponsors acknowledged earlier this year, in a court fight over the measure's ballot title, that that language doesn't give governments new authority to waive rules. The state Growth, Management and Shoreline Management acts, laws likely to be the subject of many claims if 1 -933 passes, require cities and counties to adopt regulations to accomplish certain statewide goals: allowing urban growth only in designated urban areas, preserving farmland, protecting shorelines from incompatible development . Local sales & deals Search retail ads I Co I� Page2of4 Today's featurod ads Great Harvest Bread Co: bread -y bears are back! Roche Bobois exceptional once a year sale Larnbos closing sale: everything 50 - 80% off! More ads Don't miss it Capers fall home sale Save on furniture and accessories at the Fremont and West Seattle locations. Shopping events - LL Create sale alert a -mails Store guides Grocery coupons Travel deals Looking for a car? ntp:// seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ local news /2003268555 _proprights21m.html 9/21/2006 The Seattle Times: Local News: Mid... e 933 could cost state billions, study says Page . 3 of 4 "Local governments aren't given the option of saying, 'Never mind,' " says Elaine Spencer, a Seattle lawyer who usually represents developers. Keith Dearborn, another Seattle attorney who often represents developers, has called 1 -933 "an unfunded mandate." Waiver debate The initiative implies waivers are allowed, says Richard Settle, professor emeritus at Seattle University's law school and a land -use law expert, "but whether govemments really have that option is not at all certain." At a Washington State Bar Association discussion of 1 -933 last week, Richard Stephens, a Bellevue attorney who helped draft the initiative, said govemments have the power to waive some regulations but may lack authority now to waive others. "The Legislature's going to be in session in January. To the extent [local governments] need more authority, they're going to have to get it," he said. Considering the alternative — potentially budget - busting compensation bills — legislators probably would accommodate them if 1 -933 passes, Stephens suggested. In interviews last week, Sen. Jim Kastama, D- Puyallup, and • Rep. Geoff Simpson, D- Covington, who chair committees with jurisdiction over the Growth Management Act, agreed. But OFM spokesman Spencer said the office couldn't consider that possibility in preparing its fiscal- impact statement: 'We based our analysis on the law as it is now." Stephens said I -933's authors decided not to specifically authorize waivers because they would have needed to include language to amend each individual law that might produce a claim for compensation. That would have made the initiative "25 times longer," Stephens said. Besides, Wood argues, governments already have the power to not enforce regulations that do harm. Dennis Reynolds, another Seattle land -use lawyer who usually represents landowners and developers; similarly argues that governments probably could opt to not apply growth- management regulations when 1 -933 claims are filed because officials have discretion over when and where to enforce laws. They can consider budget limitations and other factors, Reynolds says. But Elaine Spencer says environmentalists often have succeeded in court in forcing agencies to follow laws strictly. "I don't know how all this gets resolved," she said. "Presumably a lot of litigation." Eric Pryne: 206 - 464 -2231 ore_ es.com http:// seattletimes. nwsource. coml html/ localnews /2003268555_proprights21m.html 9/21/2006 • ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CiiiES Date: October 5, 2006 To: AWC Board of Directors From: Stan Finkelstein, Executive Director RE: Estimated 1 -933 Fiscal Liability in Board Member Cities As you may recall, AWC was asked to help the state estimate costs to cities if the Property Rights Initiative (I- 933) were to pass this fall. As a representative "sample" of cities and towns across the state, your communities were asked to provide estimates and ideas on how to calculate these costs. We received timely feedback from most of your cities and a variety of ideas and estimates. We developed what I consider to be quite conservative cost ,estimates and provided them to the state as a range of statewide, NOT individual city or town, estimates. To date, several cities have asked the Association for assistance in developing their own estimates based upon our methodology. In those instances, we've provided them ideas and their individual estimated city costs based upon our study. We had anticipated there might be challenges to our estimates from one or the other side of the 1 -933 debate — either too low or too high. We haven't been challenged. We had also anticipated that the just released University of Washington Study would provide better or different cost estimates for cities. It provided neither. In fact it doesn't project any costs for cities or unincorporated areas inside Growth Management Act Urban Growth Boundaries — mainly because their fiscal analysis assumed costs might mirror costs and claim experiences in Oregon (a different Initiative with far different consequences in cities and towns). The legal analysis portion of the UW Study concludes there will be significant costs and challenges from 1 -933 in cities. Our assumption is that the fiscal analysis isn't flawed, just incomplete. As such, we thought it would be useful to Washington's cities and towns to receive jurisdiction - specific 1 -933 implementation 'cost estimates from AWC. We are preparing to send out this information to each city, along with a number of caveats concerning how the study was conducted and its limitations. (See opposite side for a description of our cost estimate methodology.) Attached is a spreadsheet that identifies each of your city's implementation cost estimates. Please Note: Your city may have reached a different estimate based on other data or We hope this is helpful as you and other cities across Washington consider the implications of 1 -933 if it were to pass on November 7th. How Did We Estimate Impacts? We sent surveys to AWC Board of Director cities that reflected diversity of geographic region and population size. The survey asked cities to estimate the impact of 1 -933 in four possible categorie • Compensation resulting from actions /conditions impacting land in cities between 1996 and 2006; • • Costs to analyze claims under current, previous or proposed regulations; • Potential appraisal costs (for determining compensation values); and • Potential additional litigation costs for claims and appeals. The information request AWC sent to cities did not include direction on how to calculate impacts. At the direction of and in consultation with OFM, AWC did ask cities consider the following assumptions: assume current state requirements and regulations would remain in place, reflect costs for past city regulatory actions, and assume cities may only "waive' regulations if expressly authorized to do so in statute. City responses reflected a variety of methods for arriving at an impact estimate, including consideration of developed and. undeveloped parcels, building permit activity levels, valuation of land under critical areas or shorelines regulations, and calculations of assessed values. AWC projected a statewide estimate by: • determining population growth rates in cities over the last 10 years • grouping them into five impact categories by growth rates, and • applying a different average assessed value impact factor to each grouping for an estimated compensation liability for regulations in place between 1996 and the present. What Did We Find? Our Statewide Compensation estimate of $3.5 and $4.5 billion for actions /conditions impacting land in cities between 1996 and 2006. This compensation estimate is a total estimate for actions /conditions impacting land in cities between 1996 and 2006 and is not an annual estimate. This estimate is expressed in a range because responding cities identified a wide array of potential impacts. Our Compensation estimate may be conservative in that it only totals approximately 1% of overall statewide city assessed value and does not take into account such factors as: • The estimate is provided for current liability since 1996 only. • This estimate is based on current city regulations and state mandates and current levels of population growth. • The estimate does not reflect potential claims resulting from impacts to value of land for property adjacent to parcels on which reduced enforcement of regulations may be deemed to damage the rights or values of such parcels. • The estimate is not adjusted for inflation. Our Administrative Costs estimate for all cities and towns is between $60 and $76 million per year. This takes into account the estimated costs to analyze current and future land use plans and regulations to evaluate impacts from 1 -933 compensation claims, the costs to conduct appraisals based on OFM's estimate of appraisal costs, and the costs for associated litigation. Unlike the Compensation estimate, which is a cumulative total for years 1996 -2006, the estimated Administrative Costs are projected annually into the future beginning after December 2006. AWC 933 ESTIMATES PER CITY Total Per Cit Com Municipality Chelan Federal Wa File Grandview Harrah Liberty Luke L nwood Oak Harbor 01 m.ia Low Estimate High Estimate $3,087038 532,985,702 516.740 635 $4 024 910 $42,369,204 521,542,503 • S1.782,849 $327,292 442,561 $426,227 516,582,453 51,648,216 5208.110 58,200,765 521,174,517 52,104,646 S265,741 510,471,745 58,335,397 5929 582 516,017,028 $18 327,676 59,688,912 519,598 648 510,809,661 51.270,005 $20,618,513 $23,652,033 512,537,996 525,274,966 Pasco Port Angeles 552,001,840 $5 966,383 566,651,349 $7,784,613 Pullman Pu a lu ns Low Estimate 52,975,097 532,704,820 High Estimato Low Estimate $3,804,077 S32,500 S41,761,539 $195,000 548,750 5811,200 51,035,840 S15,840,080 520,226,564 518 046,704 , 523,044,388 59,564,721 $12,213,413 519 317,765 524,667,300 565,989,650 S7.446 697 S4,953,257 533 676,566 562,250 5249,000 562,250'$ 5249,000 5195,000 5249,000 548,750 562,250 585,882 5109,665 g 575,441 596,333 n, Lake Forest Park $4,159,939 526,643,655 $5,560,922 S34,270 898 548,750 59,750 $48,750 532,500 $48,750 5195 000 $48,750 5195,000 5195,000 5195,000 562,250 512,450 $G2 250 541,500 5249,000 5249,000 585,682 5105,432 585,882 Si 09,665 5139,736 5109 665 + 551,678,642 �y 55,831,751 53,879,056 $26,373,214 Seattle $432,854,277 5553,053,615 5432,508,394 S.okane 549,4884 70 563.524,970 - $49,142,588 Spokane Valley 5131,804,965 $168,553,802 `-'g` 5131,481,768 Tacoma 571,962,360 592,222,398 571,616,477 Tukwila 516,562,544 • 521,315,094 516,427,911 Vancouver k J $311,504,429 S398,099,194 W 5311,116,231 'The sum of Compensation, Analysis, Appraisals and Litigation Total estimate for actions/conditions impacting land in cities between 1996 and 2006 - Annual estimate ensation" Anal sis"• 5260 000 High Estimate 541,500 5249,000 562.250 5552,279 949 f 562,751,304 5260,000 5167,892,103 r,, 5195,000 591.448 732 S260,000 520,977,179 5397,271,495 o 5260,000 5332,000 5332,000 5332,000'• $48,750 562,250 A 'raisals "" Low High Estimate Estimate 575,441 585,662 5109,432 $85,882 5128,198 $85,882 575,441 585,882 5128,198 585,882 585,882 5332,000 1] 585,882 5249,000 iN 5128,198 585,882 585,882 S128,198 596,3331- 5109,665 5139,736 5109.865 5163,699 5109,665 596,333 $109,665 $163,699 $109,665 5109,665 $163,699 5109,665 5109.665 5163,699 fi $109,665 4 Lid Low Estimate 565 000 5195,000 5130,000 5130,000 56 500 $1 30,000 565,000 $130,000 5155,000 $1 30,000 5195,000 5195,000 5130,000 5195,000 5195.000 5260,000 5260 000 5195,000 3260,000 '5130,000 5260,000 ation High Estimate 583,000 $249,000 5166,000 S8.300 5166,000 $83,000 5166,000 $249,000 5166,000 $249,000 - $249,000 $166,000 - •' $249,000 5249,000 5332,000 $332,000 S249.000 5332,000 3166,000 5332.000