Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/20/1993
'�..~...�. ~~~~^ City Councoll Meeting Agenda CITY OF L22 Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President CRY of Kent Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White Office of the City Clerk - � CITY OF J q\L�/L5V SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 20, 1993 Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Volunteer Week B. Proclamation - Earthquake Awareness Week C. Proclamation - Greater Puget Sound Safe Boating Week 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies and Funding Level B. Cable TV: 1) Master Ordinance 2) Franchise Ordinance with TCI Cable - 1st Reading 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes -B. Bills C. Venture 84 Rezone (RZ-92-3) - Ordinance D. Heath Techna Franchise Ordinance - 2nd Reading E. Acceptance of Puget Power Grant - Senior Housing F. WSDOT Parking Policy Agreement _G. Kent Plant and Garden Show - Street Closure - Ordinance H. Sale of Surplus Equipment - Operations Division I. King County Interagency Agreement - 196th/200th J. King County Conservation Futures Grant Funds - Resolution/_,,: K. East Hill Park and West Fenwick Park - Art Selection L. Bill of Sale Amendment - Kent School District Admin. Bldg. M. Possession of Marijuana - Ordinance Amendment 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Riverbend Golf Complex Operational Plan CLID 333 , 338 , 339 Bond Ordinance & Purchase Contract 0 Refunding of 1980, 1986 and 1990 Voted Bonds - Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract D Refunding of 1978 and 1989 Councilmanic Bonds - Bond Q Ordinance and Purchase Contract Critical Areas Ordinance Proposal (ZCA-91-3 & CPA-91-1) F. East Lake Fenwick Park Annexation - Ordinance -- G. Permit Process Direction _. H. PrLo�curement Code Amendments - Ordinance 5 . BIDS C%'y Y�ansif Board A?ft*s A. Miscellaneous Water Main Rebuilds B. Hazardous Materials Storage Buildings 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT S . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) Proclamation - Volunteer Week B) Proclamation - Earthquake Awareness Week C) Proclamation - Greater Puget Sound Safe Boating Week (� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 V\1 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING LEVEL o{' rx Ds& 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: ;this public hearing is to consider the adoption of four action items for the 1994 CDBG program, as recommended by the Planning Committee on April 6, 1993 . The four items that need Council approval are: (1) acceptance of 1994 CDBG pass-through funds (estimated at $359, 845) ; (2) allo- cation of $48, 952 to public (human) services; (3) allocation of $31, 011 to Planning and Administration; and (4) adoption of the 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, 1994 CDBG Local Program Polices, Planning Committee Minutes of 4/6/93 and Human Services Minutes of 3/25/93 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (2-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended -V\ Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ °�L/,'�l ,• \ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the four action items for the 1994 CVBG Program, as follows: (1) acceptance of 1994 CDBG pass-through funds (estimated at $359 , 845) ; (2) allocation of $48, 952 to public (human) services; (3) allocation of $31, 011 to Planning and Administration; and (4) adoption of the 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies. DISCUSSION• rLIZ ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A CITY OF J_OLULY LS CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 d�9�II��t,A MEMORANDUM April 20, 1993 TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LIN BALL, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: 1994 DRAFT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING Background Again this year, the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass- through" funds for its 1994 Community Development Block Grant Program. The City has received its estimate for 1994 funds from King County. The estimate of $359, 845 is approximately $72 ,500 higher than the City' s 1993 Program. This is only an estimate at this time based on a projected 1994 federal entitlement. The estimate may change due to changes in the entitlement, program income and recaptured funds. The City Council needs to take four actions: 1. Receipt of Funds The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects to receive the "pass-through" funds again this year or to compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that the City accept the pass-through funds in lieu of the competitive funds in order to: 1) Maximize local discretion in allocating the funds; 2) Guarantee a minimum funding level; 3) Eliminate competition with other King County and small cities projects. If the City does not elect to take the pass-through monies, Kent is not guaranteed any CDBG funds, and would have to compete for all funds. 2 . Public (Human) Services Funding If the City chooses to accept pass-through funds, it can reserve the maximum of its fair share of public services dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this amount of funding for human services, another city can request the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to 1994 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING April 20, 1993 Page 2 continue in its present support for human services, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars available ($48,952) for human services. 3 . Planning and Administration Funds As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration. In 1993 the City reserved the maximum amount available. The Planning Department recommends allocating the maximum amount available in 1994 ($31, 011) to fund a portion of salaries and other activities associated with the administration of the Program. 4 . Local Program Policies Background The development of Local Program Policies is an annual federal requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent's CDBG Program Policies each year. The attached draft of Kent's 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies is a description of our local strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG funds in the City of Kent. Local Program Policy Changes from 1993 A. Revision to Part III (B) "Regional Needs" This section has been revised to address a newly established Consortium-wide public services funding pot. This money will be used to fund public services activities in support of the Affordable Housing requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA) . This will assist the City in meeting some of its Affordable Housing human service requirements under GMA, thus reducing the impact on the City's general fund to meet these requirements. This new funding pot will replace the existing consortium-wide emergency shelter and one-time only regional pot which the City has contributed to in the past two years. The County has indicated that it has sufficient dollars to continue to fund the regional shelter system at its current level. 1994 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING April 20, 1993 Page 3 B. Revision to Part IV - "Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers" This section has been revised to eliminate reference to projects that can no longer meet the benefit criteria of the federal regulations. Specifically, the following wording has been eliminated: "projects that link residential areas to the downtown or to community facilities and services; projects that help implement or complement the Downtown Improvement Plan; " . These type of projects cannot meet the area benefit criteria of the federal regulations, which require that the project be located in an area where at least 51% of the residents are low- and moderate-income, and that the area must be primarily residential. C. Deletion of Part IV - "Historic Preservation" The category "Historical Preservation" has been deleted as a priority for funding with City CDBG dollars. The County discourages cities from funding historical preservation projects with Block Grant dollars. The reason for this is that it is very difficult, and in most situations impossible, to meet the federal benefit criteria for historical preservation projects. This is a result of HUD changing the regulations in 1988 resulting in a tightening up of the benefit criteria. In the nineteen years of CDBG funding the City has never funded an outside application for historical preservation, and has only done one project which the City itself initiated. That project was done prior to 1988 , and would not qualify under the current regulations. The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the 1994 CDBG funding information and policies at its April 6 meeting and recommends approval of all four actions as presented. The Human Services Commission reviewed the public (human) services policy at its March 25 meeting and recommends approval as presented. Recommended Action 1. Approval to accept 1994 Pass-Through funds. 2 . Allocate $48 , 952 to Public (Human) Services, the maximum available to the City of Kent. 1994 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING April 20, 1993 Page 4 3 . Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1994 Pass-Through funds to Planning and Administration ($31, 011) . 4. Approval of the proposed 1994 Local Program Policies. The City' s action on these four items needs to be forwarded to King County by May 3 , 1993 . LB/mp:CDBG94 . CC cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) 1994 LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES CITY OF RENT I. INTRODUCTION The City of Kent's 1994 Local Program Policies summarize the City's housing and community development needs and outlines policies and priorities for use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City of Kent receives federal CDBG funds through a county-wide consortium; therefore, these Local Polices are also part of the 1994 King County CDBG Consortium Policy Plan. II. BACKGROUND The City of Kent, incorporated in 1890, was predominately an agricultural area for many years. Today Kent has adopted a suburban character as a result of the rapid growth in Seattle and the Puget Sound area. The City' s residential character is varied and divided greatly by natural topography. The residential areas in the valley, clustered mostly around the downtown, consist primarily of single family homes built in the early to mid 1900s. Large multifamily dwellings have developed on the outskirts of the downtown surrounding these older established neighborhoods. The east and west hills of Kent have seen significant growth of single family and multifamily dwelling residential in the later half of this decade. The east hill continues to develop as more land is annexed into the City. The valley floor, outside of the downtown has developed with primarily industrial, commercial, and retail uses. The City of Kent occupies roughly nineteen square miles, with a population of approximately 40, 300. According to the most recent census estimates (1990) approximately 27 percent of the City' s population are 19 years or younger and 13 percent are seniors (55 years or older) . According to 1990 Census data, over 36 percent of the City' s residents are estimated to be of low and moderate income. In the past, low and moderate income households were concentrated in and around the original townsite, which includes the Central Business District. According to recent studies, pockets of low and moderate income families in both owner occupied and rental dwellings are scattered on the east and west hills as well. 1 III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. Local Needs The primary purpose of Kent's CDBG program is to address the needs of the City's low and moderate income residents and to follow the related goals, objectives and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. In most cases, project eligibility will be determined by the clients served. In order to determine eligibility for area wide projects, the most recent census data available will be evaluated by census block. B. Regional Needs The City of Kent realizes that there are regional needs that cut across all jurisdictions within the Consortium. The City has been addressing some of these needs by funding regional agencies which provide emergency housing and services to low and moderate income residents, and a subregional health care facility. These programs currently receive money from the City of Kent, the County, and neighboring cities. The City should continue in 1994 to address the funding of regional and subregional systems. Recognizing the need to address some public service programs on a Consortium-wide (regional) basis, a Consortium-wide fund was created for the first time for the 1992 Program Year. This pot of money was targeted to support the Consortium-wide emergency shelter program and one-time-only regional projects. The City of Kent contributed to this funding program in 1992 and 1993 . Acknowledging the need to respond regionally to the affordable housing requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) , the Consortium has established in 1994 a new Consortium-wide public services funding pot. These dollars will be used to fund public service activities in support of the Affordable Housing requirements under GMA. This new funding pot will replace the existing consortium-wide emergency shelter and one-time-only pot. The City of Kent supports this new regional funding pot, as it will assist the City in meeting some of its affordable housing service requirements under GMA. The City continues to recognize the importance of a regional shelter system and the need for the City of Kent, the County and other Consortium cities to continue to support their existing Emergency Shelter Programs. In the event that future mechanisms are developed to address regional/Consortium-wide needs, the City will consider further contributing its fair share for programs which demonstrate a benefit for the citizens of Kent. 2 IV. PROJECT CATEGORIES AND POLICIES The six categories listed below are priorities the City of Kent has identified for its 1994 Community Development Block Grant program. Project applications which address one or more of the following goals are encouraged. Housing Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low and moderate income residents of Kent. The City of Kent's Housing Repair Services Program should be continued, for it addresses the needs of low and moderate income home owners. Emergency and transitional housing projects which currently serve homeless or special needs persons are emphasized, however, new programs which provide shelter or permanent housing will be considered. Public (Human) Services Projects should provide essential public services to low and moderate income persons. This may include programs which provide health care, counseling and therapy, child care, family support, support to seniors and persons with disabilities, job training, transportation, emergency & transitional housing and support services, and other services that meet demonstrated needs. Streets Walkways and Architectural Barriers Pedestrian walkways, free of impediments to access are important in neighborhoods where children, elderly, and persons with disabilities reside. The following types of physical improvements are encouraged in eligible low- and moderate-income neighborhoods of Kent: projects that improve pedestrian circulation and safety; architectural barrier removal projects; projects that improve storm drainage conditions where there exists a threat to the health or safety of the residents. Many existing publicly or privately owned housing units and commercial buildings and other non-residential structures do not currently meet federal barrier free standards. Any project which removes architectural barriers which restrict mobility of persons with disabilities or the elderly are also encouraged. Community Facilities Past CDBG funding has contributed to a number of community facilities used by the City' s low and moderate income population. Projects will be encouraged to assist in design, 3 acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of facilities serving seniors, persons with disabilities, or which house programs serving predominately low- and moderate- income residents. Parks Park projects to be encouraged are those which serve low and moderate income neighborhoods and/or other target populations, i.e. , handicapped residents. Parks projects may include rehabilitation of existing park facilities and establishment of new facilities for which funds are not elsewhere available. Planning and Administration Funds will be used for staff support and operating costs to plan and manage Kent' s CDBG program and to identify and assess the needs in the community. This will ensure adequate project implementation, fiscal control, planning, and contract compliance to ensure CDBG funds provide maximal benefit to low and moderate income residents in Kent. Additional Evaluation Criteria The following criteria may be considered in addition to the categorical priorities listed above: 1. Feasibility, timeliness, urgency. 2 . Compliance with the policies outlined in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. These policies include needs for housing and other physical improvements, as well as needs for critical human services. 3 . Compliance with the federal objective to reduce slum and blight. 4. The extent to which the needs of very low income citizens or special populations, including abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, handicapped persons, homeless persons, illiterate persons, or migrant farm workers, are addressed. 5. The extent to which regional needs are addressed. City of Kent Planning Department March 31, 1993 a:Policies. 94 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 61 1993 PAGE 2 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING LEVEL - (L. Ball) Human Services Manager Lin Ball explained that the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass-through" funds for its 1994 Community Development Block Grant Program. The 1994 funds from King County is estimated to be $359 , 845, which is approximately $72 , 500 higher than the City' s 1993 Program. Lin emphasized that this is only an estimate based on a projected 1994 federal entitlement which could change due to changes in the entitlement, program income and recaptured funds. Staff requested that the following actions be approved: 1. Approval to accept 1994 Pass-Through funds. 2 . Allocate $48, 952 to Public (Human) Services, the maximum available to the City of Kent. 3 . Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1994 Pass-Through funds to Planning and Administration ($31, 011) . 4. Approval of the proposed 1994 Local Program Policies. 5. Forward these recommendations to the full City Council for consideration at its April 20, 1993 meeting. Manager Ball explained the development of Local Program Policies is an annual federal requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent's CDBG Program Policies each year. Kent ' s 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies are a description of our local strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG funds in the City of Kent. Lin explained three(3) major changes to the 1993 Local Program Policies. The first one is a revision to Part III (B) - "Regional Needs", which addresses a newly established Consortium-wide public services funding pot. The new funding pot will replace the existing consortium-wide emergency shelter and one-time only regional pot. This money will be used to fund public services activities in support of the Affordable Housing requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and assist the City in meeting some of its Affordable Housing human service requirements under GMA. The second change is a revision to Part IV - "Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers" , which eliminates reference to projects that can no longer meet the benefit criteria of the federal regulations. Specifically, Lin said the following wording has been eliminated: "projects that link residential areas to the downtown or to community CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 PAGE 3 facilities and services; projects that help implement or complement the Downtown Improvement Plan; " . The third change is the deletion of Part IV - "Historic Preservation, which has been deleted as a priority for funding with City CDBG dollars. The County no longer includes this as an eligible activity in its policy plan and encourages cities to also remove it as a category. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the aforementioned five(5) actions. Motion carried. 1994-1996 DRAFT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA) - (L. Ball) Human Services manager Lin Ball explained the DRAFT Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) for King County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium is brought to the Committee for their review and input, prior to it going to the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) . The agreement governs the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant Consortium, the vehicle by which Kent obtains its federal Block Grant funds. It outlines how funds are shared among Consortium members, includes requirements defined by the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) , and covers the specific powers and responsibilities of the jurisdictions within the Consortium. It is necessary to adopt a new Consortium ICA every three years. Manager Ball explained the major changes in the new DRAFT ICA agreement as follows: 1. Creation of a new GMA public services set-aside fund Lin reported the existing one-time-only public services fund would be replaced with a new funding pot which would fund public service activities in support of Affordable Housing requirements under implementation of the state Growth Management Act. 2 . Chancre in Pass-through City Oualification Lin said the amount of money a city is eligible to receive in order to qualify for a direct pass-through of funds has been increased from $25, 000 to $50, 000. This change doesn't impact the City of Kent since we consistently receive in excess of $200, 000. Also, the ICA defines the responsibilities of a city in order to receive a direct pass-through. In order to receive its pass-through dollars, the City of Kent must agree to comply with these responsibilities. Cities which are not able to meet the requirements will have their pass-through status revoked. KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1993 MEETING PAGE 3 Mr. McCarthy assured Ms. Mazen that the City does not want to lose any funding, and feels he should meet with Lin Ball in order to gain a better understanding of the human services process and to see if he can suggest ways to administer the process such as using automation or resources from the Finance or Information Services Departments. He concluded by saying that if more help is needed, he would be an advocate for Lin to get more help. NEW BUSINESS 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC (HUMAN SERVICES POLICY Lin Ball referred the Commission to her memo of February 17 , 1993 and stated that staff recommends keeping the same human services block grant policy as last year. She explained that the policies outline some broad priorities for funding which allows for flexibility in final funding decisions. Marijean Heutmaker MOVED and Lucyle Wooden SECONDED a motion to retain the 1993 adopted public (human) services local program policy for 1994 . Motion carried. METRO SUBSIDIZED BUS TICKETS Rachel Johnston reviewed her memo of March 18, 1993 regarding Metro' s allocation in 1993 of $200, 000 for subsidized bus tickets for human services needs. Kent's apportionment of $5, 207 will be set aside as a valuated amount which Metro will disburse directly to designated agencies that serve low income Kent residents. Agencies will provide a 25% match. As stated in the memo, each city is being asked to direct their allocation to fund the Shelter Providers' Plan. Under this plan a portion of all jurisdictions ' allocations will be unused. The remaining funds can be carried over to 1994, cities can contribute additional money as the 25% match to help agencies purchase more tickets, or each jurisdiction can separately allocate its share of the remaining funds. Tim Clark MOVED and Peg Mazen SECONDED a motion for Kent to allocate its portion of the funds as proposed in the Shelter Providers' Plan and carry over to 1994 the remaining unused funds. REVIEW 1992 GENERAL FUND AGENCIES YEAR END REPORTS Rachel Johnston reviewed the 1992 general fund agencies year end reports. Rachel noted that the 1993 quarterly reports will not be as detailed as in the past due to the new reporting forms. The new quarterly reports will be presented in chart form. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Lin Ball reminded the Commission that a discussion on the human services element of the comprehensive plan was scheduled to take Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: CABLE TV MASTER AND FRANCHISE ORDINANCES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This Im=!* public hearing'6on the City' s proposed refranchising agreement with TCI Cablevision of Washington. The entire agreement is composed of two separate ordinances. One is the City's Master Cable TV Ordinance, which establishes the rights and liabilities for any company pro- posing to provide cable TV service to the City of Kent. The second ordinance is the specific franchise ordinance with TCI, similar to a contract, that grants TCI the right to use the City right-of-ways for its cable communications system. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes , ordinances 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) ; Public Works Committee (2-0 Councilmember White absent) : Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO__X _ YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended Under new agreement, City is projected to receive approximately $100, 000 in additional cable TV revenue. 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: (No action may be taken on a franchise ; on its day of introduction. ) Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds J DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2B Street Cleaning Wickstrom stated that staff talked with our street sweeping contractor and at no cost to us, he is willing to sweep the downtown area between 4: 00 - 6: 00 on Mondays and the other two days, would be his normal time of sweeping. Wickstrom stated this will not cost us any extra money and he can work with the crews he has. Sale of Surplus Equipment Wickstrom stated that we have a list of equipment approved in the 193 budget as a cost saving measure to declare as surplus. Wickstrom requested that these items be declared surplus so they can go to the State auction. Committee unanimously recommended approval. Cable T.V. Franchise Brubaker circulated copies of the draft Master Cable T.V. Ordinance and the draft TCI Franchise Ordinance, as well as a Bulletin from the cable consultant regarding the impact of the recent Federal regulations. Brubaker requested approval of the Ordinance for first reading and public hearing at the next Council meeting on April 20th. Brubaker noted that there will be some technical amendments. Brubaker stated that what we have now under our current contract is a 5% franchise fee; 36 channels and one public access channel; one government channel and two education channels. Under the new contract we will have a 5% franchise based on expanded definition of gross receipts which increase the City's income approximately $100, 000 per year. TCI will pay the City its actual cost to negotiate this franchise; the new franchise sets specific customer service and customer response time requirements; it gives the City specific authority to set rates if the law allows; it provides for senior and disabled citizens; low income discounts; it requires that cable be available to everyone in the City except under certain extraordinary circumstances; it provides parental control devices; it provides the City the ability to periodically re-evaluate TCI ' s system and performance; it will provide us with one government access channel fully dedicated to the City of Kent immediately; it will include camera wiring and production facilities for the City's chambers; it will provide an internal network system for the Fire Department and within 48 months or upon TCI 's construction of a fibre optic network in the City of Kent, whichever occurs first, we will have unlimited channel capacity; the internal network system will become a two-way system for fire and will be available for police and for the Kent School system. Brubaker stated that the franchise term is 15 years. Brubaker requested Committee's approval to go forward with this item to Council on April 20th for a first reading and public 2 hearing, with Council adoption on May 4th. committee unanimously recommended Council approval for the public hearing and first reading of the Cable T.V. Franchise for April 20th. Brubaker requested an Executive Session immediately following the meeting. MASTER ORDINANCE ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to cable television communications regulations , repealing Ordinance 2093 and establishing new conditions, requirements, obligations and duties of construction, maintenance and operation of cable communication systems as may be authorized under franchise with the City. TABLE OF CONTENTS Kent Code Section Section Heading Page 7 . 12 . 010 Short Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 . 12 . 020 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 . 12 . 030 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 . 12 . 040 Franchise to Install and Operate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 . 12 . 050 Police Powers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 . 12 . 060 Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 . 12 . 070 Public Hearing on Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 . 12 . 080 'Considerations at Public Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 . 12 . 090 Council Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 . 12 . 100 Procedure for Renewal of Franchise. . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 . 12 . 110 Transfer of Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7 . 12 . 120 Acceptance of Franchise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7 . 12 . 130 Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7 . 12 . 140 Franchise Fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 . 12 . 150 Franchise Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 . 12 . 160 Indemnity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 . 12 . 170 Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7 . 12 . 180 Franchisee ' s Obligations to the Public. . . . . . . 19 7 . 12 . 190 City ' s Right to Make Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7 . 12 . 200 Permits Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7 . 12 . 210 compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7 . 12 . 220 Customer Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7 . 12 . 230 Telephone Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7 . 12 . 240 Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7 . 12 . 250 Senior Citizen Discount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7 . 12 . 260 Cable Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7 . 12 . 270 Extraordinary Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7 . 12 . 280 Distribution Line Extension Charges. . . . . . . . . . 31 7 . 12 . 290 Nondiscrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7 . 12 . 300 Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 . 12 . 310 Technical Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS Kent Code Section Section Heading Page 7 . 12 . 320 Preventive Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7 . 12 . 330 Parental Control Devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7 . 12 . 340 Equalization of Civic Contributions. . . . . . . . . . 33 7 . 12 . 350 Subordinate to City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7 . 12 . 360 obligation to Comply Promptly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7 . 12 . 370 Transfer of Powers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7 . 12 . 380 No Recourse Against City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7 . 12 . 390 Subsequent Action. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7 . 12 . 400 Modification by Franchisee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7 . 12 . 410 Cable System Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7 . 12 . 420 Record Inspection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7 . 12 . 430 Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7 . 12 . 440 Termination and Revocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7 . 12 . 450 Remedies to Enforce Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 7 . 12 . 460 Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7 . 12 . 470 Effect on Prior Franchises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7 . 12 . 480 Incorporation by Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix "A" - Customer Service Standards ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to cable television communications regulations , repealing Ordinance 2093 and establishing new conditions, requirements, obligations and duties of construction, maintenance and operation of cable communication systems as may be authorized under franchise with the City. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREb-. ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1: Repealer. Ordinance 2093 of the City of Kent, Washington, adopted 5/19/78 (enacting Chapter 7 . 12 of the Kent City Code) , regulating the construction, maintenance and operation of a cable communications system within the City of Kent, establishing and defining terms, conditions, rates and charges, requirements, obligations and duties and setting forth penalties is hereby repealed. CATV Master Ord. - Page 1 of 41 ........ . ...... . .. ......... ... . . ........ ........... .. ........... ........ .... ... ... ...... Section 2 : The following new Chapter 7 . 12 shall be added to the Kent City Code: Sec. 7 . 12 .010. Short Title. This Ordinance shall constitute the "Cable Communications Ordinance" of the City and may be referred to as such. Sec. 7 . 12 . 020 . Purpose. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to regulate in the public interest the operation of cable communications systems and their use of the public streets by establishing procedures for the granting and termination of franchises, by prescribing rights and duties of operators and users of cable communications systems, and by providing generally for cable communications service to the citizens of Kent. Sec. 7 . 12 . 030 . Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words, abbreviations and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this section. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense shall include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. A. "Access Channels" . Those channels designated and maintained by a cable communications system for programming not originated or procured by the system, including, but not limited to, local government, educational and public access channels . B. "The Act" . The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 , and any subsequent amendments. CATV Master Ord. - Page 2 of 41 C. "Addressability" . The ability of a system allowing franchisee to authorize by remote control customer terminals to receive, change or to cancel any or all specified programming. D. "Affiliate" . A condition of being united, being in close connection, allied, or attached as a member or branch. E. "Applicant" . Any person or entity that applies for a franchise. F. "Basic Services" . Those broadcast and non-broadcast services provided by the cable Franchisee at the lowest monthly charge as defined by The Act or rules now or subsequently adopted by the FCC. G. "Cable Services" , "Cable Communications System" , or "CATV System" . These words are used interchangeably for the purpose of this ordinance and are terms describing a system employing antennae, microwave, wires, wave-guides, coaxial cables or other conductors, equipment, or facilities designed, constructed or used for the purpose of: 1. Collecting and amplifying local and distant broadcast, television, or radio signals and distributing and transmitting them; 2 . Transmitting original cablecast programming not received through television broadcast signals; 3 . Transmitting television pictures, film and videotape programs not received through broadcast television signals, whether or not encoded or processed to permit reception by only selected receivers; and 4 . Transmitting and receiving all other signals; digital, voice and audio-visual . GTV Master Ord. - Page 3 of 41 H. "Channel" . A single path or section of the spectrum which carries a television signal . I . "Character Generator" . A device used to generate alpha-numerical programming to be cablecast on a cable channel . J. "City" . The City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reincorporated form. K. "Council" . The City Council of the City of Kent or any future body constituting the legislative body of the City. L. "Data Communications" . Either ( i) the movement of encoded information by means of electrical or electronic transmission systems or ( ii) the transmission of data from one point to another over communications channels. M. "Dwelling Units" . Residential living facilities as distinguished from temporary lodging facilities such as hotel and motel rooms and dormitories, and includes single family residential units and individual apartments, condominium units, mobile homes within mobile home parks, and other multiple family residential units. N. "FCC" . The Federal Communications Commission, a regulatory agency of the United States Government. 0. "Franchise" . The authorization granted under this Ordinance in terms of a franchise, privilege, permit, license or otherwise to construct, operate and maintain a cable communications system within all or a specified area in the City. This term, under any such authorization in whatever form granted, shall not mean and does not include any license or permit required by other laws, ordinances or rules of the City for the privilege of CATV Master Ord. - Page 4 of 41 transacting and carrying on a business within the City, or fc construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or use on, over or under any public rights-of-way. P. "Franchise Agreement" . A document entered into between the City and a franchisee that sets forth the terms and conditions under which the franchise will be exercised. Q. "Franchisee" . Any person, firm or corporation granted a franchise by the City under this Ordinance and the lawful successor, transferee or assignee of such person, firm or corporation. R. "Gross Revenues" . Any and all receipts and revenues received directly or indirectly from all sources other than transactions related to real property receipts by a franchisee not including any taxes on services furnished by a franchisee, imposed on any subscriber or used by any governmental unit, agency o- instrumentality and collected by a franchisee for such entity; provided also that net uncollectible debts are not considered as revenue under this definition. S . "High Definition Television (HDTV) " . A television system that will provide sharper picture definition than the current U. S. Standards, 525 lines per frame. T. "Headend" . The electronic equipment located at the start of a cable system, usually including antennas, preamplifiers, frequency converters, demodulators and related equipment. U. "Insertion Point(s) " . Location(s) where institutional programming can be initiated for distribution throughout the secured portion of the subscriber network. CAN Master Ord_ - Page 5 of 41 V. "Installation" . The connection of the system from feeder cable to subscribers ' terminals. W. "Institutional Services" . A CATV system designated principally for the provision of non-entertainment services to schools, public agencies or other non-profit agencies, separate and distinct from the subscriber network, or on secured channels of the subscriber network. X. "Interactive Services" . Services provided to subscribers where the subscriber either ( i) both receives information consisting of either television or other signals and transmits signals generated by the subscriber or equipment under his/her control for the purpose of selecting what information shall be transmitted to the subscriber or for any other purpose; or (ii) transmits signals to any other location for any purpose. Y. "Interconnect" . The sharing of video, audio and/or data transmissions between two or more cable systems, institutional networks and/or users. Z . "NCTA" . The National Cable Television Association. AA. "Operator" . The person, firm or corporation to whom a franchise is granted pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance: BB. "Person" . Any natural person and all domestic and foreign corporations, associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, partnerships of every kind, clubs, business and common law trusts and societies. CC. "Premium Services" . Programming over and above the basic services provided by a franchisee, for which there is an additional charge. GTV Master Ord. - Page 6 of 41 DD. "Property of Franchisee" . All property owned, installe or used by a franchisee in the conduct of its business in the City under the authority of a franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance. EE. "Proposal" . The response, by a person, entity or corporation, to a request by the City regarding the provision of cable services; or an unsolicited plan submitted by an individual or organization seeking to provide cable services in the City. FF. "Public Way" or "Street" . The surface, the air space above the surface and the area below the surface of any public street, including, but not limited to, any public alley, boulevard, drive, right-of-way or sidewalk under the jurisdiction of the City. GG. "Subscriber" . A person or entity receiving for consideration, direct or indirect, any service of a franchisee ' s cable communications system. Sec. 7 . 12 .040 . Franchise to Install and operate. A. Authority to Grant Franchise. The Council may grant a non-exclusive franchise for all or any defined portion of the City. The service area shall be the entire area defined in a Franchise Agreement between the City and a franchisee. The initial service area shall be that portion of the Franchise Area scheduled to receive initial service, as stated in the Franchise Agreement. B. Grant. In the event that the Council shall grant to a franchisee a nonexclusive, revocable franchise to construct, operate, maintain and reconstruct a cable communications system within the Franchise Area, or renew an existing franchise, said franchise shall constitute both a right and an obligation to provide the services of a cable communication= CATV Master Ord_ - Page 7 of 41 system as required by the provisions of this Ordinance and the Franchise Agreement. The Franchise Agreement shall include those provisions of a franchisee' s Application for Franchise that are finally negotiated and accepted by the Council and a franchisee. Any franchise granted under the terms and conditions contained herein shall be consistent with federal, state and local laws and regulations. In the event of conflict between the terms and conditions of the franchise and law or statutory requirements, the law or statutory requirements shall control. Any franchise granted is hereby made subject to the general ordinance provisions now in effect or hereafter made effective. Nothing in the franchise shall be deemed to waive the requirements of other codes . and ordinances of the City with regard to permits, fees to be paid or manner of construction. C. Franchise Required. No cable communications system shall be allowed to occupy or use the streets in the Franchise Area or be allowed to operate unless the City has granted a franchise for such system in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. D. Establishment of Franchise Requirements . The City may establish requirements reflecting changing technology, economic or legal issues as appropriate that may affect a new or renewal franchise at such time that these applications are received. E. Duration. The term of any new franchise and all rights, privileges, obligations and restrictions pertaining thereto shall be as established in the Franchise Agreement, unless terminated sooner as hereinafter provided. GTV Master ord. - Page 8 of 41 F. Franchise Nonexclusive. Any franchise granted shall k nonexclusive. The City specifically reserves the right to grant, at any time, such additional franchises for a cable communications system as it deems appropriate, provided however, that such additional grants shall not operate to materially modify, revoke, or terminate any rights previously granted to any Franchisee. Sec. 7 . 12 . 050 . Police Powers. Nothing in this ordinance or in any agreement awarding a franchise in accordance herewith shall be construed as an abrogation by the City of any of its police powers. Sec. 7 . 12 . 060 . Application. Each application for the granting of an initial franchise to construct, operate or maintain any cable communications system j the City shall be filed with the City Clerk, be accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee in an amount to be determined by the City and shall also contain or be accompanied by the following information: A. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; B. A detailed statement of the corporate or other business entity organization of the applicant, including but not limited to, the following and to whatever extent may reasonably be required by the City: 1. The names, residence and business addresses of all officers and directors of the applicant; 2 . The names and addresses of all persons having, controlling or being entitled to have or control five percent (5%:) or more of the -ownership of th GTV Master Ord. - Page 9 of 41 applicant, either directly or indirectly, and the respective ownership share of each such person; 3 . A detailed description of all previous experience of the applicant or the owners of the applicant in providing cable communications and in related or similar fields; 4 . A detailed and complete recent financial statement prepared by or under the supervision of certified public accountants, and of any corporation owning a majority or more of the voting stock of the applicant; 5 . A detailed financial plan showing the financial resources required to construct and operate the proposed system, together with satisfactory evidence of the availability to applicant of funding requirements in excess of applicant ' s own cash resources not otherwise committed; C. A detailed statement of the proposed plan of operation of the applicant, which shall include: 1 . A statement of the area proposed to be served by cable and a proposed time schedule, not in conflict with this Ordinance, for installation of all equipment necessary to complete energization throughout the entire service area ; 2 . A statement or schedule setting forth all proposed classifications of rates and charges to be made against subscribers and all rates and charges as to each of the classifications including installation charges and service charges, which shall remain in effect for not less than twelve (12) months following the grant of franchise; provided that a franchisee by this requirement shall not be CATV Master Ord- - Page 10 of 41 precluded from initiating a rate revision prior t the twelfth month, to be effective thereafter; 3 . A detailed, informative and referenced statement describing the actual equipment and operational standards proposed by the applicant, including when applicable administrative and technical procedures for interconnection of access channels and for safeguarding the privacy of return signals will be installed. In no event shall the operational and performance standards be less than those contained in the rules of the FCC; 4 . A copy of any agreement proposed to be entered into between the applicant and any subscriber; 5 . A statement setting forth the substance of, and names of persons party to, all agreements existing or proposed between the applicant and any other person which materially relate to or depend upon the granting of the franchise; D. A copy of any agreement with respect to the Franchise Area existing between the applicant and any public utility providing for the use of any facilities of the public utility; and E. Any other reasonable information requested by the City, or its designee, or required by any provision of any other ordinance of the City, or deemed pertinent by the applicant. Sec. 7 . 12 . 070. Public Hearing on Application. The Council shall , upon receipt of an application for a franchise under this Ordinance, promptly schedule a public hearing upon the application before the City Council , and the City Clerk shall publish notice thereof in a newspaper of general circulation CATV Master Ord_ - Page 11 of 41 within the City at least once a week for each of the two (2) weeks preceding such hearing, provided that no two (2) or more applications shall be considered at any one hearing except by consent of the applicants. The notice shall state the name of each proposed franchisee for each cable district and the place where applications and relevant material are available to the public, and shall set forth the day, hour and place when and where any interested person may file written comments pertaining thereto and/or appear before the Council and be heard. Sec. 7 . 12 .080 . Considerations at Public Hearing. At the hearing so scheduled or any adjournments thereof, all citizens and other interested parties shall have an opportunity to express their views orally or in writing to the Council, and the Council shall consider all the views expressed at the public hearing in determining its action upon each franchise application. Written comments, if responsive to written or oral statements of any person filed or made at the hearing, but not otherwise, shall be received up to the conclusion of the fifth (5th) business day following the conclusion of the hearing, and be considered by the Council . The Council shall also give due consideration to: A. The quality of the service proposed; B. The experience, character, background and financial responsibility of each applicant and its management and owners; C. The financial and commercial interests of the applicant, and whether there exists an actual or potential conflict of interest with the interests of the City; D. The technical and performance quality of equipment; CATV Master Ord_ - Page 12 of 41 E. The program proposed for construction; and F. The applicant' s ability to meet construction a physical requirements and to abide by the terms and requirements of the franchise generally. In awarding a franchise, the Council shall also assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides. Sec. 7 . 12 . 090 . Council Determinations - Rejection or Further Consideration of Application. A. The applicant shall be afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence, and to question witnesses . B. At the completion of the hearing, the Council shall issue a written decision, stating its reasons for granting or denying the application, based upon the record of such proceeding, and shall transmit a copy of such decision to the applicant. Sec. 7 . 12 . 100 . Procedure for Renewal of Franchise. The procedure for granting any franchise other than those contemplated by Section 7 . 12 . 060 and for renewing any franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall be as follows: A. Upon receipt of any application for the granting or renewal of such a franchise, the Council shall schedule a public hearing and cause notice thereof to be published at least once a week for each of two (2) weeks preceding the hearing in the newspaper of general circulatio- GTV Master Ord. - Page 13 of 41 within the City, which notice shall contain the same information as described in Section 7 . 12 . 070. B. The Council shall consider public testimony and comment in the same manner as set forth in Section 7 . 12 . 080, but shall instead consider the following as criteria for granting or denying any franchise renewal : 1. Whether the applicant has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law; 2 . Whether the quality of the applicant ' s service, including signal quality, response to consumer complaints and billing practices, but without regard to the mix, quality, or level of cable services or other services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community needs ; 3 . Whether the applicant has the financial , legal and technical ability to provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in the operator' s proposal or application; and 4 . Whether the applicant ' s proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests. C. In any hearing for a franchise renewal, the applicant shall be afforded fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence, and to question witnesses. D. At the completion of a proceeding under this section, the Council shall issue a written decision stating the GTV Master Ord_ - Page 14 of 41 reasons for such decision granting or denying tr application for renewal based upon the record of such proceeding, and shall transmit a copy of such decision to the applicant. Sec. 7 . 12 . 110. Transfer of Ownership. A franchisee ' s right, title, or interest in the Franchise shall not be sold transferred, assigned, or otherwise encumbered, other than to an Affiliate, without the prior consent of the Franchising Authority, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. No such consent shall be required, however, for a transfer in trust, by other hypothecation, or by assignment of any rights, title, or interest of the franchisee in the Franchise or Cable System in order to secure indebtedness. Approval shall not be required for mortgaging purposes provided that the collateral does not specifically affect the assets of this franchise, or if the said transfer is from a franchisee to another person or entit" controlling, controlled by, or under common control with tt franchisee. In any transfer of a franchise requiring City approval , the applicant must show technical ability, financial capability, legal and general qualifications as determined by the City. Applicant must agree to comply with all provisions of the franchise. Costs associated with the transfer process shall be reimbursed to the City. An assignment of a franchise shall be deemed to occur if there is an actual change in control or where ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the beneficial interests, singly or collectively, are obtained by other parties. The word "control" as used herein is not limited to majority stock ownership only, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. Regardless of the circumstances, a franchisee shall promptly notify the City prior to any proposed change, transfer, or acquisition by any other party of a franchisee ' s company. In the CATY Master Ord. - Page 15 of 41 event that the City adopts a resolution denying its consent, and such change, transfer or acquisition of control has been effected, the City may cancel the franchise. Sec. 7 . 12 . 120 . Acceptance of Franchise. A. No franchise granted under this Ordinance shall become effective for any purpose unless and until a franchisee has filed an acceptance in writing. Such written acceptance, which shall be in form and substance approved by the City Attorney, shall also be and operate as an acceptance of each and every term, condition and limitation contained in this Ordinance or in such franchise. B. The written acceptance shall be filed by a franchisee not later than sixty (60) days following the effective date of the ordinance granting such franchise. C. In the case of the failure to file such written acceptance as required by this section, a franchisee shall be deemed to have rejected and repudiated the franchise and the City may invite and thereafter receive applications from persons desiring to serve the subject area. Sec. 7 . 12 . 130 . Bonds. A franchisee shall promptly repair or cause to be repaired any damage to City property caused by a franchisee or any agent of a franchisee. A franchisee shall comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations regarding excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City, shall be required to post a performance bond or other surety acceptable to the City in an amount specified by the City in favor of the City warranting that all restoration work will be done promptly and in a workmanlike GTV Master Ord. - Page 16 of 41 manner and that penalties, if any, after final adjudication ar paid to the city within ninety (90) days of such finding. Sec. 7 . 12 . 140. Franchise Fee. A franchisee shall make payment to the City on a quarterly basis (on or before the thirtieth (30th) day of each January, April , July and October) , in a sum equal to five percent (5%) of the franchisee ' s gross revenues from the operation of the cable system. The City may raise the franchise fee, if so permitted by Federal and/or State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in franchise fees, the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council to discuss said increases. Following such a hearing the City Council may amend or confirm such increases. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable advance notice, to inspect the books of a franchisee for this purpose, during normal business hours. Sec. 7 . 12 . 150 . Franchise costs. A franchisee shall pay to the City upon acceptance of any . franchise granted hereunder, the City ' s out-of-pocket costs associated with the franchising process. The City shall provide the franchisee an itemization of its anticipated costs. Such payment is not deductible or considered in lieu of franchise fee payments. Payment is due within thirty (30) days of acceptance of any franchise granted under this Ordinance. Sec. 7 . 12 . 160 . Indemnity. By acceptance of a franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance and the rights and privileges thereby granted, a franchisee shall covenant and agree with the City for itself, its successors and assigns, to at all times, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and agents GTV Master Ord. - Page 17 of 41 from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, cost, expenses or damages of every kind or description which may accrue to or be suffered by any person or persons or property, and to appear and defend at its own cost and expense, any action instituted or begun against the City for damages by reason of a franchisee' s construction, reconstruction, readjustment, repair, maintenance, operation or use of the streets of the City, or any act(s) or omission(s) of a franchisee, its successors or assigns, exercising any privilege conferred by this ordinance or by such franchise; provided, however, that in the event any such claim, action, suit or 'demand be presented to or filed with the City or any court having jurisdiction, the City shall notify franchisee thereof, and the franchisee shall have the right, at its election and at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such claim or demand, or to defend the same at its sole cost and expense, by attorneys of its own decision. In case judgment shall be rendered against the City in any such suit or action, each party shall fully satisfy such judgment to the extent of its comparative fault within ninety (90) days after such action or suit shall have been finally determined, if determined adversely to either party. Sec. 7 . 12 . 170 . Insurance. So long as a franchisee shall possess any right or privilege granted pursuant to this Ordinance or franchise, and before the commencement of any work thereunder, a franchisee shall deliver to the Director of Public Works for filing with the City Clerk, a certificate of insurance showing that it has procured and is maintaining at all times a policy of public liability insurance, subject to the approval of the City Attorney naming the City as an additional insured, protecting the City against claims for injuries or death to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the franchise by a C.ATV Master Ord. - Page 18 of 41 franchisee, its agents, representatives, employees c subcontractors. The policy of insurance shall evidence policy limits as follows: A. Automobile liability insurance with limits no less than One Million Dollars ($1, 000, 000. 00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and B. Commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than One Million Dollars ($1, 000, 000. 00) combined single limit per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2 , 000, 000 . 00) aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual ; products/completed operations; broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) ; and employer' s liability. These limits are listed in 1993 dollars and shall be adjusted as necessary, but in no event less than once every five years, to adjust for inflation. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of a franchisee. Subject to the indemnification provisions of Section 7 . 12 . 160 herein, a franchisee ' s insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. Sec. 7 . 12 . 180 . Franchisee' s obligations to the Public. A franchisee, in the use of the public streets and rights-of-way, shall ensure that: GTY Master Ord. - Page 19 of 41 A. The safety, functioning and appearance of the property and the convenience and safety of persons will not be adversely affected by the installation or construction of facilities necessary for a cable system; B. The cost of the installation, construction, operation or renewal of such facilities be borne by a franchisee or subscriber, or a combination of both; and C. The owner of property will be justly compensated by a franchisee for any damages caused by the installation, construction, operation or removal of such facilities by the cable operator. It shall be a franchisee ' s sole responsibility when cable passes over or under private or publicly owned property to obtain all necessary permission from the owner thereof. Sec. 7 . 12 . 190 . City' s Right to Make Improvements. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the City or any local improvement district from sewering, paving, grading, altering or otherwise improving or re-improving any of the streets of the City, including the installation of City-owned utilities, and the City shall not be liable for any damages resulting to a franchisee by reason of the performance of such work or by exercise of such rights by the City. This Ordinance shall not be construed so as to deprive the City of any rights or privileges which it now has, or which may hereafter be conferred upon it to regulate and control the use of the streets. A franchisee shall , at its sole cost and expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street, right-of-way or any other public place, any of its installations when so required by the City for reasons of traffic conditions or public safety, street vacations, dedications of new CATV Master Ord_ - Page 20 of 41 rights-of-ways and the establishment and improvement thereof freeway construction, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity. The City will make its best effort and attempt to design or redesign streets, avenues, alleys, public places or ways, and other City utilities to minimize the impact thereof on a franchisee' s existing facilities, including the need to require a franchisee ' s facilities to be relocated. Provided, however, the City shall make the final determination on the need for relocation of a franchisee ' s facilities. Whenever the City determines that any of the above circumstances necessitate the relocation of a franchisee ' s then existing facilities, the City shall provide a franchisee with at least sixty (60) days written notice unless an emergency exists requiring such relocation, which shall be completed by a franchisee at no cost and within the time frame set by the City. Upon the franchisee ' s failure to complete relocation to its installation- and facilities so directed, the City may remove same at e� franchisee ' s expense. See. 7 . 12 .200 . Permits Required, Terms of Use and Occupancy of Streets. The terms and conditions of a franchisee ' s use and occupancy of public streets and public rights-of-way in the City shall be as follows: A. Safety Requirements . A franchisee, in accordance with applicable National, State, and Local safety requirements shall, at all times, employ ordinary care and shall install and maintain and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injury, or nuisance to the public. GTV Master Ord. - Page 21 of 41 All structures and all lines, equipment and connections in, over, under, and upon the streets, sidewalks, alleys, and public ways or places of a franchise area, wherever situated or located, shall at all times be kept and maintained in a safe, suitable condition, and in good order and repair. The City reserves the general right to see that the system of a franchisee is constructed and maintained in a safe condition. If a violation of the National Electrical Safety Code or other applicable regulation is found to exist by the City, the City will , after discussions with a franchisee, establish a reasonable time for a franchisee to make necessary repairs. If the repairs are not made within the established time frame, the City may make the repairs itself or have them made and collect all reasonable costs thereof from a franchisee. B. Construction Notification. Upon application for each construction permit a franchisee will submit to the City its plan for advance notification for the proposed construction project. In the event that an emergency situation arises which precludes such advance notification, a franchisee shall subsequently inform the City of the nature of the extraordinary event and the action taken. C. Underaroundin4. In any area of the City in which telephone, electric power wires and cables have been placed underground, a franchisee shall not be permitted to erect poles or to run or suspend wires, cables or other conductors thereon, but shall lay such wires, cables or conductors underground in such manner as is required by the City. If an ordinance is passed creating a local improvement district which •involves placing CATY Master Ord. - Page 22 of 41 underground certain utilities including that of ? franchisee which are then located overhead, a franchisee• shall participate in such underground project and shall remove poles, cables and wires from the surface of the streets within such district and shall place the same underground in conformity with the requirements of the city' s Public Works Director. D. Pole Installation and Attachment - Joint Use. All poles, cables, wires, antennae, conduits or appurtenances shall be constructed and erected in a neat, workmanlike manner and shall be of such height and occupy such position as the City ' s Director of Public Works shall approve. A franchisee erecting or maintaining poles shall allow anyone constructing under the authority of this Ordinance and the City, joint use of its poles upon payment, except as provided in subsection F of this section, of a reasonable proportion of the cost of such poles installed and shall obey any order issued by the City' s Director c Public Works relative to the joint use of poles. E. Building Moving. Whenever a person shall have obtained permission from the City to use any street for the purpose of moving any building, a franchisee, upon seven (7) days written notice from the City, shall raise or remove, at the expense of the permittee desiring to move the building, any of a franchisee ' s wires which may obstruct the removal of such building; provided, that the moving of such building shall be done in accordance with regulations and general ordinances of the City. Where more than one street is available for the moving of such building, the building shall be moved on such street as shall cause the least interference, which path of least interference shall be determined by the City' s Director of Public Works. GTY Master Ord. - Page 23 of 41 F. Relocation of Facilities. A franchisee shall, unless an emergency arises, upon thirty (30) days notice, at its own cost and expense, move any underground, surface or overhead construction which interferes with any local improvement district work or with any construction for public purposes authorized or ordered by the City, all as provided in Section 7 . 12 . 190. G. Abandonment of Facilities. A franchisee accepting a franchise under the terms of this Ordinance for the installation of ducts, utility tunnels, vaults, manholes, poles, wires or any other appurtenances, shall remove such installation when it is no longer required or used and the City ' s Director of the Public Works Department orders the removal thereof. H. Tree Trimming. Upon approval of the City's Director of Public Works, a franchisee shall have the authority to trim overhanging trees upon streets, public ways and public places in the Franchise Area so as to prevent the branches of such trees from coming into contact with a franchisee ' s wires and cables, and if necessary, to clear a microwave path. A franchisee shall be responsible for debris removal from such activities. At the option of the City, and with advance written notice to a franchisee, such trimming may be done by the City or under its supervision and direction, with reasonable costs to be borne by a franchisee. I . Dangerous Condition, Authority to City to Abate. Whenever a franchisee ' s construction, installation or excavation of facilities authorized by this Ordinance has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining street or public places, streets, utilities or City GTV Master Ord. - Page 24 of 41 property, or endangers the public, the City' s Public Works Director may direct a franchisee, at th` franchisee' s own expense, to take actions to protect the public, adjacent public places, City property or street utilities; and such action may include compliance within a prescribed time. In the event that a franchisee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent streets or street utilities to maintain the lateral support thereof, or other actions regarded as necessary safety precautions ; and a franchisee shall be liable to the City for the costs thereof. J. Restoration of Streets . After construction, installation, maintenance or repair of the facilitic authorized by this Ordinance or any permit obtained by virtue of a franchise granted under this Ordinance, a franchisee shall leave all streets, avenues, highways or public places in as good and safe condition in all respects as they were before the commencement of such work by a franchisee. The City ' s Public Works Director shall have final approval of the condition of such streets and public places after completion of construction. K. City Expense - Reimbursement. Franchisee shall reimburse the City for all actual administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly related to receiving and approving a permit or license and to inspect plans and construction. Where the City incurs actual administrative expenses for review or inspection of GTY Master Ord_ - Page 25 of 41 activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Franchise (and which such expenses are not duplicative of expenses which are reflected in some other City-imposed charge or fee) , franchisee shall pay such expenses directly to the City; provided, however, that the City shall provide franchisee notice of its estimated actual administrative expenses when those charges exceed or are estimated to exceed an average daily rate over the life of the permit equal to two times the City' s regular hourly charge for review and inspection. Sec. 7 . 12 . 210 . compliance. Construction, maintenance and operation of a franchisee ' s system including house connections, shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and in accordance with the provisions of all other applicable codes and ordinances, including the National Electrical Code, and a franchisee shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and the rules and regulations of the FCC relating to cable television systems. Sec. 7 . 12 . 220 . Customer Service. A. A franchisee shall render repair service to restore the quality of the signal at approximately the same standards existing prior to the failure or damage of the component causing the failure and make repairs promptly and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Such interruptions, insofar as possible, shall be preceded by notice and shall occur during a period of minimum use of the system. A log of all service interruptions shall be maintained and kept on file by a franchisee. The City, after two working days ' notice, may inspect such logs. GTV Master Ord_ - Page 26 of 41 B. Installation work shall be performed in a timely manner. Tb- franchisee shall offer a choice of morning, afternoon or late, afternoon appointments, within a four (4) hour time period. If the franchisee fails to keep a scheduled appointment with a subscriber, and fails to give notice to the subscriber at least two (2) hours prior to the scheduled appointment time, the franchisee shall give a service credit to that subscriber unless failure of notice is caused by Acts of God. C. An employee of a franchisee shall answer and respond to all individual complaints received prior to 5 : 00 p.m. weekdays. A franchisee may use an answering service to receive complaints after 5 : 00 p.m. weekdays and on weekends and holidays and will promptly respond to any system outage affecting more than five subscribers. A copy of the instructions to the answering service by a franchisee shall be furnished to the City •or its designee. D. A standby technician shall be on call seven (7) days a weekr twenty-four (24) hours a day. A franchisee shall respond immediately to service complaints in an efficient manner. E. A franchisee shall maintain a sufficient repair force to respond to individual requests for repair service within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the complaint or request, except Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. All complaints shall be resolved within seven (7) days. If a subscriber has notified a franchisee of an outage, no charge for the period of the outage shall be made to the subscriber if the subscriber was without service for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) hours, unless the outage was due to Acts of God, force majeure or circumstances reasonably beyond a franchisee ' s ability to control . GTY Master Ord. - Page 27 of 41 F. A franchisee shall supply at the time of a new connection, and periodically at least once a year, the title, address, and telephone number of the City official or his/her designee, to whom system subscribers may direct their concerns. G. In no case will a Franchisee' s service standards fall below the standards established by the NCTA which are attached herein as an Appendix A and are made a part of this Ordinance by this reference. Sec. 7 . 12 .230 . Telephone Response. A franchisee shall maintain an adequate force of customer service representatives as well as incoming trunk lines so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsively. A franchisee shall have in place procedures for utilization of other manpower and/or recording devices for handling the flow of telephone calls at peak periods of large outages or other major causes of subscriber concern. A copy of such procedures and/or policies shall be made available to the City. Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by the franchisee, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds, average speed of answer, and busy signals shall not occur more than three percent (3%) of the time. This requirement shall be met at least ninety percent (90%) of the time, measured over any consecutive ninety (90) day period. The franchisee shall use an answering service or be capable of receiving service complaints and system malfunction reports when the business office is closed. In order that the City may be informed of a franchisee ' s success in achieving satisfactory customer relations in its telephone answering functions, a franchisee shall, upon request by the City, and routinely no less than quarterly, provide the City with a summary that will provide, at a minimum, the following: A. Number of calls received in a reporting period; GTV Master Ord. - Page 28 of 41 B. Time taken to answer; C. Average talk time; D. Number of calls abandoned by the caller; E. Average hold time; F. Percentage of time all lines busy; and, G. An explanation of any abnormalities. This data will be compared to minimum standards of the NCTA being incorporated herein by reference or any amendment thereto increasing such standards, and shall be monitored by the City. Calls for service generated during periods of system outages due to emergency affecting more than 25 customers may be excluded from the service response calculations. The City shall have the sole determination as to what constitutes a system failure due to emergency and which calls shall be excluded from the service level calculations. Sec. 7 . 12 .240 . Rates. A. Subject to Federal , State and Local law, the City may establish and regulate the rates or charges for providing cable service and establish rate regulation procedures. In the event that federal laws are subsequently enacted that would allow the City to review, regulate and establish the rate charged to a subscriber for cable services, the City may thereafter take such action. B. Within thirty (30) days after the grant of any franchise hereunder a franchisee shall file with the City a complete schedule of all rates to be charged to subscribers. Prior to implementation of any change in rates or charges for any service or equipment provided by a franchisee, a franchisee shall provide to the City and all subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days ' written notice of the new schedule of rates to be charged. GTV Master Ord_ - Page 29 of 41 Sec. 7 . 12 .250 . Sr. Citizen/Disabled Person Low Income Discount. A franchisee shall offer a discount of thirty percent (30%) from the normal rate to subscribers for basic services and installation to those persons who are aged sixty-two (62) or older, and/or disabled, provided that such person(s) are the legal owner or lessee/tenant of their residence and that their combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area for the current and preceding calendar year. The City or its designee shall be responsible for certifying to a franchisee that such applicants conform to the specified criteria. Sec. 7 . 12 .260. Cable Availability. Cable service shall not be denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides. Sec. 7 . 12 .270 . Extraordinary Installation. All residents requesting cable service and living within one hundred fifty (150) feet of existing cable distribution lines shall have the cable installed at the prevailing published installation rate. In the event a request is made for service and the residence is more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from an existing cable distribution line, such installation shall be completed on a time and material cost basis for that portion of the service line extending beyond one hundred fifty (150) feet. GTV Master Ord. - Page 30 of 41 Sec. 7 . 12 .280. Distribution Line Extension Charges. Cable Service shall be available to all residents within the City provided there are at least thirty five (35) dwelling units per street mile. In the event a request is made for service by a resident(s) living in an area not meeting such criteria, the franchisee shall enter into a contractual agreement with the resident(s) requesting service wherein the franchisee shall be reimbursed for its construction costs. Whenever any subsequent subscriber who did not contribute to the original cost of the extension connects to the extended distribution service line, that subscriber shall pay his/her pro rata share directly to the franchisee prior to obtaining cable service. The franchisee shall then promptly tender such payment to the original subscriber so long as the agreement remains in force. Reimbursement shall be calculated on a front foot basis as a percentage of the total cost of the service line extension Reimbursements shall be made to the original subscriber for period of up to five (5) years or to the point when the franchisee has recovered its incremental costs to construct the distribution service line. The franchisee shall record its contractual agreement with the original subscriber in the office of the King County Recorder before any subsequent subscriber connects to the extended service line. Sec. 7 . 12 .290 . Nondiscrimination. A franchisee shall not, as to rates, charges, service facilities, rules, regulations or in any other respect, make or grant any preferences or advantage to any person nor subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage; provided, that nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to prohibit the establishment of a graduated scale of charges d classified rate schedules including GTV Master Ord. - Page 31 of 41 discounts to senior citizens and disabled persons of low income to which any customer coming within such classification would be entitled, and provided further that connection and/or service charges may be waived or modified during promotional campaigns of a franchisee. A franchisee will not deny access to cable communications service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which the group resides. Sec. 7 . 12 . 300. Programming. For informational purposes a franchisee shall file a listing of its programming and the tiers in which they are placed. A franchisee shall consider the City' s suggestions of general program categories as determined from time to time in residential questionnaire polls. The results of initial surveys will be appended to the respective franchise ordinances . Sec. 7 . 12 . 310 . Technical Standards. A franchisee shall comply with the following technical standards: A. All federal statutes, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to the FCC rules, Part 76, Subpart K, Section 76 . 601 through 76 . 610, as each may be hereafter amended; B. All applicable City, County, and State statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations; C. All applicable joint utility attachment practices; D. The National Electric Safety Code; ANSI C2 ; GTV Master Ord. - Page 32 of 41 E. All local utility code requirements and rights-of-wa• procedures. Sec. 7 . 12 .320 . Preventive Maintenance. A franchisee shall develop comprehensive, routine preventive maintenance programs and effectuate same in order to ensure the continued, top quality cable communications operating standards as defined and in conformance with this Ordinance and all other local, state and federal statutes, rules or regulations promulgated on the subject. Sec. 7 . 12 . 330 . Parental Control Devices. A franchisee will make available at its cost (including appropriate handling charges) a device by which the subscriber can prohibit viewing of a particular cable service during periods individually selected. Sec. 7 . 12 . 340 . Equalization of Civic Contributions. In the event of one or more franchises being granted, the City may require that such subsequent franchisees pay to the City an amount proportionally equal to franchising costs contributed by the initial franchisee. These costs may include, but are not limited to, such features as access and institutional network costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable installed to municipal buildings and similar expenses. On the anniversary of the grant of each later awarded franchise, such franchisees shall pay to the City an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee, based upon the amount of subscribers held by such franchisees. Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel (s) currently available to the subscribers of existing franchisees. In order to provide these access channels, additional franchisees may CAT4 Master Ord. - Page 33 of 41 interconnect, at their cost, with existing franchisees, subject to any reasonable terms and conditions that the existing franchisee providing the interconnection may require. These interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees. The City Council, in such cases of dispute over an interconnection agreement as contemplated under this Section 7 . 12 . 340, may be called upon to arbitrate the dispute. Sec. 7 . 12 . 350. Subordinate to City and Prior Lawful occupancy. Any privilege claimed under any such franchise by a franchisee in a street or other public property shall be subordinate to the City's lawful police powers and to any prior lawful occupancy of the streets or other public property. In addition to the inherent powers of the City to regulate and control any franchise the City issues, the authority granted to it by The Act, and those powers expressly reserved by the City, or agreed to and provided for in a franchise, the right and power is hereby reserved to the City to promulgate such additional regulations of general applicability as it may find necessary in the exercise of its lawful powers. Sec. 7 . 12 . 360. obligation to Comply Promptly. Time shall be of the essence in any franchise granted under this Ordinance. A franchisee shall not be relieved of its obligation to comply promptly with any of the provisions of this Ordinance by any failure of the City to enforce compliance. Sec. 7 . 12 . 370. Transfer of Powers to Other City Officers or Employees. For purposes of the administration of this Ordinance, any right or power conferred or impressed upon any officer, employee, department or board of the City shall be subject to transfer by the CAN Master Ord_ - Page 34 of 41 City to any other officer, employee, department or board of tl, City or its designee. Sec. 7 . 12 . 380. No Recourse Against the City for Loss or Expense. A franchisee shall have no recourse whatsoever against the City for any loss, cost, expense or damages arising out of the issuance of a franchise under this Ordinance or because of the City' s related lawful enforcemeQt actions. Sec. 7 . 12 .390 . Subsequent Action by State or Federal Agencies. If any subsequent federal , state or local law, ordinance or regulation shall require or permit a franchisee to perform any act which may be in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance, or shall prohibit a franchisee from performing any act in conformance with the terms of this Ordinance, then as soon as possible following knowledge thereof, a franchisee shall so notify the City. If the Council determines that a material provision of this Ordinance is affected by such changed or new law, ordinance or regulation, the City and a franchisee shall enter into good faith negotiations to modify this Ordinance to conform with such changed requirements. Failure to complete these negotiations to the satisfaction of both parties within a reasonable time shall constitute a material breach of the franchise, but in no event shall a period of less than 180 days be deemed unreasonable pursuant to this section. Sec. 7 . 12 . 400 . Modification by Franchisee. During the period that a franchise is in effect, a franchisee may seek modifications of the franchise requirements in accordance with the conditions set forth in The Act. CATV Master Ord. - Page 35 of 41 Any decision by the Council to modify a franchise shall be made in a public hearing. Such decision shall be made within 120 days after the City' s receipt of a request by the franchisee, unless the 120 day period is extended by mutual agreement of the City and franchisee. Sec. 7 . 12 .410 . Cable System Evaluation. In addition to periodic meetings, the City may require reasonable evaluation sessions at any time during the term of a franchise. it is intended that such evaluations cover areas such as customer service, response to the community' s cable-related needs, and a franchisee ' s performance under and compliance with the terms of a franchise. During an evaluation session, a franchisee shall fully cooperate with the City and shall provide without cost such reasonable information and documents as the city may request to perform evaluations. If the City has concerns because of reoccurring problems with the franchisee ' s cable system it may retain an , independent consultant to conduct an analysis of the cable system and its performance and submit a report of such analysis to the City. The City shall take into consideration any efforts taken to correct such deficiencies. The report prepared by the consultant in response to the City ' s request for a system evaluation shall include: A. A description of the technical problem in cable system performance which precipitated the special tests; B. What cable system components were tested; C. The equipment used and procedures employed in testing; D. The method, if any, by which specific performance problems may be resolved; GTY Master Ord_ - Page 36 of 41 E. Any other information pertinent to said tests ar analyses which may be required by the City, or determined' when the test is performed. If the tests indicate that the system is not in compliance with FCC standards or the requirements of the Franchise, a franchisee shall reimburse the City for any costs involved in conducting such tests, such as consultant fees or other expenses. Such fees or expenses shall not exceed $2 , 500 for each evaluation. This figure is based on 1993 dollars and shall be adjusted for inflation. Sec. 7 . 12 . 420 . Record Inspection. Subject to statutory and constitutional limits and two working days ' advance notice, the City reserves the right to inspect the records of a franchisee necessary for the enforcement of a franchise and verification of the accuracy of franchise few payments at any time during normal business hours, provided that the City shall maintain the confidentiality of any trade secrets or other proprietary information in the possession of a franchisee. Such documents shall include such information as financial records, subscriber records within the context of Section 631 of The Act and plans pertaining to a franchisee ' s operation in the City. Sec. 7 . 12 . 430 . Reports. A franchisee shall furnish, upon request, a report of its activities as appropriate. Such report shall include: A. Most- recent annual report. B. A copy of the 10-K Report, if required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. C. The number of homes to which cable is made available. D. The number of subscribers with basic services. GTV Master Ord. - Page 37 of 41 E. The number of subscribers with premium services. F. The number of hook-ups in period. G. The number of disconnects in period. H. Total number of miles of cable in City. I. Summary of complaints received by category, length of time taken to resolve and action taken to provide resolution. J. A statement of its current billing practices, and a sample copy of the bill format. K. A current copy of its subscriber service contract. - Such other reports with respect to L. Report on Operations its local operation, affairs, transactions or property that may be appropriate. Sec. 7 . 12 . 440 . Termination and Revocation. If a franchisee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this franchise, the City shall give written notice to a franchisee of the alleged non-compliance of its franchise. A franchisee shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of notice of non-compliance to cure such alleged default or, if such default cannot be cured within forty-five (45) days, to present to the City a plan of action whereby such default can be promptly cured. If such default continues beyond the applicable dates agreed to for such cure, the City shall give a franchisee written notice that all rights conferred under this Ordinance and its franchise may be revoked or terminated by the Council after a public hearing. A franchisee shall be entitled to not less than thirty (30) days ' prior notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the superior court having jurisdiction compelling a franchisee to comply with the provisions of the franchise and may recover CATV Master Ord. - Page 38 of 41 damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of a franchisee' ' failure to comply. Sec. 7 . 12 .450. Remedies to Enforce compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any lawful remedy to compel or force a franchisee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter initiating the termination or ' revocation procedures established in this Ordinance. Sec. 7 . 12 . 460 . Interpretation. A franchisee shall comply with all pertinent rules, regulations and requirements of the FCC, or any other federal or state body or agency having jurisdiction in regard to cable television systems. Sec. 7 . 12 . 470 . Effect on Prior Franchises. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall abridge, impair, alter, modify or in any way affect any right, privilege or immunity of either a franchisee or the City conferred by or arising under any cable franchise granted prior to and remaining in effect on the effective date of the ordinance; provided, that the acceptance of a franchise granted under this ordinance for any cable service area shall be deemed to constitute the surrender by a franchisee of the right to operate a cable television system in that cable service area under any prior franchise. CATV Master Ord. - Page 39 of 41 Sec. 7 . 12 .480 . Incorporation by Reference into Each Franchise. The Cable Communications Ordinance shall be incorporated in its entirety by reference into and become a part of each and every cable television franchise granted by the City. Section 3 . Severability. Each section, subsection or other portion of this ordinance is severable, and the invalidity of any section, subsection or other portion shall not invalidate the remainder. Section 4 . Savings. Ordinance 2093 , which is repealed by this Ordinance, shall remain in force and effect until the effective date of this Ordinance. Section S. Effective Date. An ordinance granting a franchise shall not be adopted or passed by the Council on the day of its introduction; nor for five (5) days thereafter; nor at any other than a regular Council meeting; nor without first being submitted to the City Attorney; nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire Council ; nor without being published at GTV Master Ord_ - Page 40 of 41 least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City befo• becoming effective. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy Of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK CATVMSTR.adm CATV Master Ord. - Page 41 of 41 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CABLE INDUSTRY CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS February 14 , 1990 The cable industry is dedicated to providing our customers a consistently high level of service. We are committed to ensuring that our customers receive a variety of quality programming, reliable, clear signals, and prompt, courteous service. To that end, we, as industry, have voluntarily adopted the following Standards of Customer Service. Each community and each cable system are different and a reasonable flexibility should . be employed in applying these standards; rigidity will hamper rather than help good customer service. We are confident, however, that the cable industry as a whole will implement these voluntary standards by July 1991, and recommend them for overall operational use by that date. 1. Office and Telephone Availability A. Knowledgeable, qualified company representatives will be available to respond to customer telephone inquiries Monday through Friday during normal business hours. Additionally, based on community needs, cable systems will staff telephones for supplemental hours on weekdays and/or weekends. B. Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by a customer service representative, including wait time, and the time required to transfer the call, shall not exceed 30 seconds. Those systems which utilize automated answering and distributing equipment will limit the number of routine rigs to four or fewer. Systems not utilizing automated equipment shall make every effort to answer incoming calls as promptly as the automated systems. This standard shall be met no less than ninety percent of the time measured on an annual basis. * C. Under normal operating conditions, the customer will receive a busy signal less than three percent of the total time that the cable office is open for business. D. Customer service center and bill payment locations will be open for transactions Monday through Friday during normal business hours . Additionally, based on community needs, cable systems will schedule supplemental hours o weekdays and/or weekends during which these centers wil-L be open. 2 . Installation, outages and service Calls Under normal operating conditions, each of the following four standards will be met no less than 95% of the time measured on an annual basis. A. Standard installations will be performed within seven business days after an order has been placed. "Standard" installations are up to 125 feet from the existing distribution system. B. Excluding those situations beyond the control of the cable operator, the cable operator will respond to service interruptions promptly and in no event later than 24 hours. Other service problems will be responded to within 36 hours during the normal work week. C. The appointment window alternatives for installations service calls, and other installation activities will be (a) morning, (b) afternoon, or (c) all day during normal business hours. Additionally, based on community needs, cable systems will schedule supplemental hours during which appointments can be set. D. If, at any time an installer or technician is running late, an attempt to contact the customer will be made and the appointment rescheduled as necessary at a time which is convenient for the customer. 3 . Communications, Bills and Refunds A. The cable company will provide written information in each of the following areas at the time of installation and at any future time upon request: • products and services offered • prices and service options • installation and service policies • how to use the cable service B. Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. C. Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than the earlier of 45 days or the customer' s next billing cycle following the resolution of the request, and the return of the equipment supplied by the cable company if service is terminated. D. Customers will be notified a minimum of 30 days in advance of any rate or channel change, provided the change is within the control of the cable operator. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, granting unto TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. , the right, privilege, authority and franchise for fifteen (15) years to construct, maintain and operate a cable television system for the distribution of television and other electronic signals within all City right-of-ways. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pacre 1. Purpose 1 2 . Length of Franchise 2 3 . Service Area 2 4 . Franchise Fee 2 5. Future Provisions 4 6. Public, Educational , and Government Access Channels 5 7 . Government Access Equipment 6 S . Institutional Networks 7 9 . Coverage 7 10 . Emergency Override 8 11. Public Buildings 8 12 . Penalties 9 13 . Independent Contractors 10 14 . Entire Agreement 10 15. Successors or Assigns 11 16 . Acceptance 11 17 . Notice 11 18 . Severability 12 19 . Effective Date 12 Appendix "A" Access Studio and Equipment Appendix "B" Building Locations Appendix "C" Public Schools Programming Survey ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, granting unto TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. , the right, privilege, authority and franchise for fifteen (15) years to construct, maintain and operate a cable television system for the distribution of television and other electronic signals within all City right-of-ways. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Purpose. This Franchise shall constitute an agreement between the City of Kent (hereinafter the "City") and TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. (hereinafter the "Operator") . The Operator promises to construct, maintain, and operate a cable television system for the distribution of television and other electronic signals pursuant to the terms of this Franchise. The City agrees to grant the Operator all necessary rights and privileges to use public rights of way necessary for a cable television system. This agreement shall , as of its effective date, supersede and replace all existing franchises previously granted by the City of Kent to the Operator or any of its predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Section 2 : Length of Franchise. The length of this Franchise shall be for a term of fifteen (15) years commencing on the effective date of this ordinance. Section 3: Service Area. The Operator' s service area shall be the entire incorporated area of the City of Kent, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged, or re-incorporated form. Section 4 : Franchise Fee. The Operator shall pay to the City quarterly, on or before the thirtieth (30th) day of each January, April , July and October, a sum equal to five percent (5%) or greater of gross revenues commencing upon the effective date of this ordinance. Revenues that are derived as a portion of a national or regional service shall be computed on a per subscriber basis if such determination cannot be achieved by other means . The City may raise the franchise fee, if so permitted by Federal and State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in franchise fees the Operator may request, and will be granted, a public hearing by the City Council to discuss the benefits of said increase to the citizens of Kent. Upon a finding of the City Council that such increase is reasonably required to meet community needs, taking into consideration the cost of providing such increase, the City Council may require the implementation of such increase in accord with the provisions of this agreement. (a) Late Payment. Any quarterly franchise fee not paid by the Operator within thirty (30) days of the end of a quarter shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 2 of 13 annum or whatever maximum amount is allowed under State lac whichever is greater, from the due date until paid. (b) Financial Reports. Each franchise fee payment shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City showing the basis for the Operator' s computation and separately indicating revenues received by the Operator within the City from basic service, pay TV service, other applicable sources of revenue, and such other information directly related to confirming the amount of the Operator' s gross revenues as may be reasonably required by the City. (c) Audit by City. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable notice or no less than .two working days, to inspect the books and records of the Operator during normal business hours, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator. In the event that such audit discloses a discrepancy of more than ten percent (10° between the financial report submitted by the Operator with a quarterly payment and the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator, the Operator agrees to pay to the City the costs of such audit. In the event that such audit results in a determination that additional franchise fees are due the City, the Operator further agrees to pay interest as required for late payment on such additional franchise fees computed from the date on which such additional franchise fees were due and payable. (d) Non-waiver. Acceptance of any franchise fee payment by the City shall not be construed as an agreement by the City that the franchise fee paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall acceptance of payment by the City be construed as a release or waiver of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Ordinance. TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 3 of 13 (e) Taxes. Nothing in this section shall limit the Operator' s obligation to pay applicable local, State, or Federal taxes. Section 5: Future Provisions. The City and the Operator acknowledge that the former should be provided with a cable system that has the same general capabilities and capacity as those provided other cities served by the Operator in the King-Pierce-Snohomish County area of the State of Washington. The City may, at its discretion, require that the Operator provide such interactive services as addressability, security, computer interaction, banking, shopping, voice and data transmission, High Definition Television (HDTV) , fiber optic and other such features, as well as upgrades capable of carrying at least fifty-four (54) channels, within the City within twenty-four (24) months of any of the following occurrences: Provision by the Operator of any of the same services identified above to a preponderance of a CATV system; (a) Within the City of Seattle system, or; (b) Within any adjacent community, or; (c) Forty percent (40%) of the municipalities in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Notwithstanding the above, the Operator shall in any event complete the upgrade to 54 channels and have the capability of implementing these enhanced services within forty-eight (48) months from the effective date of this franchise. Prior to implementation of any such services listed above the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council , to discuss the benefits of said features to the citizens of the City. TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 4 of 13 Upon a finding by the City Council that such features are reasonably required to meet community needs, taking into consideration the expense of providing such services and the potential costs to subscribers, the City Council may require the implementation of such features in accord with the provisions of this agreement. If the Council deem it necessary, it may, at its own option by a majority vote, extend the time requirements established in this section. Additionally, the Operator, upon completion of the upgrade or by the expiration of the forty-eight (48) month period as prescribed herein, shall provide, maintain and operate a public access studio within a radius of eight (8) miles of the City Hall , or at a location mutually agreeable by all parties. Such facilities shall be subject to approval by the City as suitable. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 6 : Public Educational and Government Access Channels. Within six (6) months of the effective date of this Franchise, unless such time is extended by mutual written agreement between the parties, the Operator shall make provisions so that the City shall have the capability of live broadcasting from City Hall . The City shall initially be provided with one (1) access channel capable of live broadcast from City Hall . Upon the provision of fifty-four (54) or more channels the City shall be provided with one (1) educational access channel upon request by the City. The City may initially share a common public access channel with other communities, however, the City may elect, at its option, to provide programming over an individual public access channel for the City' s sole use. TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 5 of 13 Additional channels over and above these shall be mac' available for City purposes when any of the two (2) designated channels is in use for access purposes with programming during fifty percent (50%) of the hours between 10: 00 a.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. , during any consecutive ten (10) week period. Programming or additional channels required shall be distinct and non-repetitive of the previous channel. The Operator shall, within six (6) months following a request by the City, provide another designated access channel for this purpose. The Operator shall continue to provide additional channels under the same conditions. If additional channels are designated for community use, but, after one year, such channel (s) are not programmed at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the hours between 10: 00 a.m. and 10: 00 p.m. with programming, the access users will, within six (6) months of receiving written notice from the Operator, group their programming into one contiguous block of time of their choosing. The remaining broadcast time on such channel shall then revert to the Operator for its unrestricted use withi:, the terms and conditions of this ordinance. Contributions to Public, Educational and Government ("PEG") access will not be considered in lieu of a franchise fee or other obligations to the City. Section 7 • Government Access Equipment. The Operator shall provide, maintain, and install the necessary equipment for local government cablecasting within six (6) months of a request of the City unless extended by mutual written agreement. Such equipment shall not be less in quantity nor equivalent quality than those listed in Appendix A. TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 6 of 13 Section 8: Institutional Networks. Within twelve (12) months from the effective date of this franchise the Operator shall provide a unidirectional institutional network linking the City' s fire stations as indicated in Appendix B. This system will allow programming to be originated in coded form from the East Hill fire station and to be received by decoding devices in each fire station location. Upon completion of the upgrade under the conditions specified in "Section 5: ' Future Provisions, " the Operator shall make available within six (6) months an interactive system to provide two-way communication between the fire stations. Subsequent to this event other agencies may request a hearing by the City Council in order to substantiate a need for further educational or public safety bi-directional networks. The Operator shall have the opportunity to present its views on the cost and appropriateness of any such contemplated network. Section 9 : Coverage. The City shall be provided with cable television service in the entire Franchise area. If such a condition does not now exist, the Operator shall complete such wiring and be in a position to offer cable reception to all residents within twelve ( 12) months from the grant of the Franchise. Areas subsequently annexed shall be provided with cable availability within twelve ( 12) months if not already served by cable, subject to the terms in Section 7 . 12 .270 Extraordinary Installation of Section 2 of the Kent Cable Communications Ordinance No. TCl/CATV franchise - Page 7 of 13 Section 10 • Emergency Override. Upon completion of the system upgrade subject to the conditions of Section 5: Future Provisions the Operator shall make provisions for an emergency alert system from City Hall or any one of the primary police or fire facilities. The Operator shall establish a process which will provide a character generated scroll and make its best effort to furnish a voice override notifying viewers and listeners of the emergency. This emergency alert system will be compatible with applicable Federal , State and Local regulations. Subject to Federal and State laws and regional planning authorities, control of these emergency override facilities shall be the responsibility of the City. The City shall hold a franchisee, its agents, employees, officers, and assigns harmless from any claims arising out of the emergency use of its transmitting facilities by the City. The City, at its option may elect to share this service with adjoining communities. Section 11: Public Buildings. The Operator shall provide without charge for installation or monthly rate, basic service, and outlets at such public buildings and schools as specified in Appendix "B" and "C" as well as other such buildings that may be constructed during the period of the Franchise that are passed by cable and within 150 feet of the trunk or distribution system. The Operator shall make its best efforts to provide regional interconnection of all schools at the appropriate time. TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 8 of 13 Section 12 : Penalties. The City may, following a hearing of the City Council, apply any of the following penalties in connection with delays in system performance. The City shall, prior to any hearing which may result in the imposition of fines, provide the Operator a reasonable opportunity to correct alleged violations by notifying the Operator in writing within thirty (30) days of the City' s discovery of the alleged violation, stating the nature of the alleged non-compliance. If, following such hearing, it is determined by the City Council that the Operator has failed to comply with the schedule set forth in the Franchise, monetary penalties will be imposed as set forth below for each day beyond thirty (30) days that the Operator has not fulfilled the requirement (s) : a. Upgrade improvements and regional P.E.G. facilities required by Section 5 : Future Provisions, $200. 00 per day. b. Equipment and channels committed by the Operator to the City for access purposes described in Sections 6 . 7 and 8 , $200. 00 per day. C. Coverage of annexed areas where such is not completed as required by Section 9 , $200 . 00 per day. Termination of the Franchise pursuant to the procedure outlined in the City ' s Cable Communications Ordinance No. may be imposed for any violation of one or more of the above listed items. The Operator and the City agree that any of the above described violations, unless excused, would constitute failure to comply with a material provision of the Franchise. No penalty shall be imposed without a hearing before the Council or its designated representative(s) . No penalty, bond, forfeiture, or termination shall be imposed for delays where such delays are TCl/CATS Franchise - Page 9 of 13 - the result of causes beyond the control and/or without fault o negligence of the Operator, as determined by the City. The Operator shall be entitled to an extension of time if construction is suspended or delayed by the City, or where unusual weather, acts of God (e.g. earthquakes, floods, etc. ) , extraordinary acts of third parties, or other circumstances which are beyond the control of the Operator, delay progress provided that the Operator has not, through its own actions or inactions, substantially contributed to the delay. The amount of time allowed will be determined by the City and the Operator. The extension of time in any case shall not be less than the extent of the actual non-contributory delay experienced by the Operator. If payment of any of these penalties is delinquent by three (3) months or more, the City may require partial or total forfeiture of performance bonds or other surety. Section 13 • Independent Contractor. This agreement shall not be construed to provide that the.• Operator is the agent or legal representative of the City for any purpose whatsoever. The Operator is not granted any express or implied right or authority to assume or create any obligation or responsibility on behalf of or in the name of the City or to bind the City in any manner or thing whatsoever. Section 14• Entire Agreement. This agreement, including the City' s Cable Communications Ordinance No. and exhibits that are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, represents all of the covenants, promises, agreements, and conditions, both oral and written, between the parties. However, the City reserves the right to waive any of these sections without affecting the applicability of other sections not so specifically waived. Waiver of any Franchise TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 10 of 13 requirement or Ordinance sections by the City shall be in writing in order to be effective. Section 15: Successors or Assigns. This Franchise Agreement, including all addenda, and the City ' s Cable Communications Ordinance No. shall bind the Operator, its heirs, successors, transferees and assigns. Section 16: Acceptance. This grant of Franchise and its terms and provisions shall be accepted by the Operator by the submission of a written instrument, executed and sworn to by a corporate officer of the Operator before a Notary Public, and filed with the City Clerk within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Franchise. Such instrument shall evidence the unconditional acceptance of this Franchise and the promise to comply with and abide by all its provisions, terms and conditions. Section 17 : Notice. Written notices shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the individual or entity for whom it was intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified United States mail to the last business address known to the party who gives the notice. All notices and requests shall be addressed to the City of Kent and the Operator as follows: 7C1/CATV Franchise - Page 11 of 13 CITY: City Clerk City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 OPERATOR: TCI cablevision of Washington, Inc. P. O . Box 1048 Auburn, WA 98002 Section 18: Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the invalidity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 19 : Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days from and after its passage and publication, provided, however, the Franchise granted by this Ordinance shall not become effective until the Operator files written acceptance thereof. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 12 of 13 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK TCIFRNCH.adm TCl/CATV Franchise - Page 13 of 13 Kent Access Equipment APPENDIX A In accordance with Section 7 • Government Access Equipment, the following equipment or its equivalent will be supplied by the Operator: Ouantity Description of Item 1 Texscan MSI-SG 4-B Character Generator 3 Panasonic CCD Two-Color Chip Cameras 3 Telco Remote Camera Control Systems 1 Amega 3000 Computer System with Omni Link and Video Toaster 2 Panasonic AG 8350 SVHS 1/2" Recording Decks 1 Shure Audio Microphone System 10 Lavalier Microphones 3 12" Color Monitors 1 19" Color Monitor 2 Panasonic AG460 1/2" SVHS Cameras 2 LTM 4 Pepper 420 Light Kits (with accessories) 2 Bogen 3062 Video Tripods (w/3066 fluid head) 2 Tripod Adaptors 20 1/2" 20 Minute Video Cassettes 20 1/2" 30 Minute Video Cassettes 20 1/2" 60 Minute Video Cassettes Miscellaneous lighting system as required adequately allow for the video taping and broadcast of City meetings in the existing City Council Chambers. Miscellaneous cable as required to complete the wiring of the existing City Council Chambers. Kent Public Buildings APPENDIX B CENTENNIAL CENTER LIBRARY 400 W. Gowe 212 2nd Ave. N. Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 CITY HALL RIVERBEND DRIVING RANGE 220 4th Ave. S. 2020 W. Meeker Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 CITY SHOPS RIVERBEND 9 HOLE 5821 S. 240th 2020 W. Meeker Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 CORRECTIONS FACILITY RIVERBEND 18 HOLE 1230 S. Central 2019 W. Meeker Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 FIRE STATION #1 SENIOR CENTER 504 W. Crow 600 E. Smith Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98031 FIRE STATION #3 SPECIAL POPULATIONS CENTER 26512 Military Rd. S. 315 E. Meeker Kent, WA 98031 Kent, WA 98031 FIRE STATION #4 VALLEY COM. 24611 116th Ave. S . E. 23807 98th S . Kent, WA 98031 Kent, WA 98031 KENT COMMONS KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 525 4th Ave. N. 232 4th Ave. S . Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 The following buildings will be connected when economically and technically feasible: FIRE STATION #6 , 20676 72nd Ave. S . , Kent, WA 98032 City of Rent Schools APPENDIX - C Cedar Valley Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary 26500 Timberlane Wy. SE 12711 S.E. 248th Street Kent, WA 98042 Kent, WA 98031 Covington Elementary Mattson Junior High 17070 S.E. Wax Road 16400 S.E. 251 st. Kent, WA 98042 Kent, WA 98042 East Hill Elementary Meridian Junior High 9825 S . 240th 23480 120th S.E. Kent, WA 98042 Kent, WA 98031 Grass Lake Elementary Panther Lake Elementary 28700 191st PI . S .E. 20831 108th S .E. Kent, WA 98042 Kent, WA 98031 Kent Elementary Park Orchard Elementary 317 4th Avenue S . 11010 S.E. 232nd Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98031 Kent Junior High Pine Tree Elementary 620 N. Central 27825 188th S. E. Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98031 Kent Meridian High School Scenic Hill Elementary 10020 S .E. 256th 26025 Woodland Way S . Kent, WA 98031 Kent, WA 98031 Kentridge High School Soos Creek Elementary 12430 S .E. 208th 12651 S .E. 218th PI. Kent, WA 98031 Kent, WA 98031 Lake Youngs Elementary Springbrook Elementary 19660 142nd Ave. S .E. 20035 1OOth S.E. Kent, WA 98042 Kent, WA 98031 The following schools will be provided with cable service when economically and technically feasible: Crestwood Elementary, 25225 180th S .E. , Kent, WA 98042 Horizon Elementary, 27641 144th Avenue S .E. , Kent, WA 98042 Jenkins Creek Elementary, 26915 186th Avenue S .E. , Kent, WA 98042 Kent Continuation School , 22420 Military Road, Kent, WA 98032 Kentwood High School , 25800 164th S .E. , Kent, WA 98042 Neely-O ' Brien Elementary, 6300 S . 236th Street, Kent, WA 98032 Sequoia Junior High, 11000 S .E. 264th, Kent, WA 98031 City of Kent Programming survey Results of Random Sampling of 800 Residences 11/13/91 % Responding Interest as Type of Programming Very High or Somewhat High News. . . 88% OldMovies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75% Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75% Weather. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% AdultEducation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67% Health. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63% Local Bulletin Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59% FineArts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58% VideoMusic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58% Children' s Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54% Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% Consumer Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% LocalAdvertisement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% SeniorCitizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29% U.S. Congress Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% Religious. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21% • Spanish Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: aeU44��- Councilmember_ moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through M be approved. Discussion �� Action 1 Y v' ,+ CA 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 6, 1993 . 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through April 6, 1993 after._ auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on April 15, 1993 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington April 6, 1993 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Johnson, Mann and Orr, Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Acting Finance Director Miller and Human Resources Director Olson. Councilmembers Houser and White were excused from the meeting. Approximately 35 people were in attendance. PUBLIC City Attorney Lubovich requested that Agenda COMMUNICATIONS Items 4A (Refunding of 1980, 1986 and 1990 Voted Bonds) and 4B (Refunding of 1978 and 1989 Council- manic Bonds) be removed from tonight 's agenda and brought back when market conditions are more favorable. Councilmember Mann requested, since there have been questions raised in the community with regard to the funds for a youth center study, that Agenda Item 4I be pulled and sent to the Parks Committee. Regional Justice Center. Kay Sparks, Project Coordinator, announced that the Howard Manufactur- ing and NW Metals sites have been purchased for the Regional Justice Center and that site survey work will begin within 60 days. She added that a meeting with the City' s technical committee should be held soon. Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods announced that David Gilmore of the Fire Department has been selected as Employee of the Month for April. She noted that Gilmore's career with the City began as a Building and Grounds Maintenance Worker and that he has been promoted to a supervisory position because of his outstand- ing ability, team spirit and dedication to his work. Fire Chief Angelo noted that Gilmore has saved the City a great deal of money through his overall care of the buildings, and that he can be counted on to be available day or night in emer- gency situations. He added that Gilmore asked him to voice his gratitude for this award. Public Health Week. Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring the week of April 4-10, 1993 , as Public Health Week in the City of Kent and urging all citizens to join the Mayor in this observance by seeking knowledge and understanding 1 April 6, 1993 PUBLIC of public health issues. The proclamation was COMMUNICATIONS presented to Public Health Nurse Amy Vince Cruz. Community Development Week. Woods read a procla- mation declaring the week of April 5-9, 1993 as Community Development Week in the City of Kent and encouraging all citizens and businesses to ac- knowledge and support important community develop- ment efforts in the City. Conaressmember Jennifer Dunn. Mayor Pro Tem Woods introduced Congressmember Jennifer Dunn, who re- presents many Kent citizens in Washington D. C. Dunn greeted the members of the Council and noted that it is her intent to work with Mike Kriedler to get some help on the 196/200th corridor from the Federal level. Woods thanked Ms. Dunn and invited her to return whenever possible. CONSENT MANN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR P be approved. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of the Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 16, 1993 . WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Lake Plaza Condominiums Master Meters. AUTHORIZATION to use two master meters to provide water service to two separate complexes of the Lake Plaza Condominium Development, as recommended by the Public Works Committee, and in accordance with Ordinance No. 2370. SIDEWALKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) LID 342 - West Smith Street Sidewalks. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1351 declaring the City' s intention to order sidewalk improvements on West Smith Street from N. Washington Ave. to 64th Ave. So. and to create a local improvement district, and setting May 4th as the public hearing date, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. TRAFFIC CONTROL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F) Lindental Developer Agreement (272nd/277th Corridor) . The Lindental Development is a plat abutting the 277th Corridor at 116th Avenue SE. 2 April 6, 1993 TRAFFIC CONTROL The Public Works Committee recommends that the Public Works Director be authorized to sign the Lindental developer agreement. By this agreement, the City would be an agent acting on behalf of the developer and the City would build a minimum road during the plat development, that would later fit into alignment with the corridor project. BENNETT MOVED that the Public Works Director be authorized to sign the Lindental Plat Developer/ City Agreement. Johnson seconded. Mann noted that he will vote against the motion for reasons he has shared with the Council previously. The motion then carried with Mann opposed. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G) Restricted Parking Zones. The proposed ordinance would provide authority to create restricted parking zones and issue parking permits. Once adopted, the City could designate, by separate ordinance, certain areas restricted parking and issue permits for the same. City Attorney Lubovich explained that this item was brought to a Council Committee by a citizen who requested permitted parking on his street. He emphasized that the ordinance before the Council tonight does not issue a permit, but simply sets up the process. He explained that the permits would be for one year and must be initiated by a petition signed by 2/3 of the affected residents. He said that the matter then go before the Public Works Committee, and the fee would be $20. 00, except for elderly or low income residents who would pay $5. 00. He said a $25. 00 parking infrac- tion for unauthorized parking could be issued and affected vehicles would be subject to impoundment. He noted for Orr that the dollar figures could be removed from this ordinance and fees could be ' adopted by resolution. Orr noted that another city recently removed the fees from their ordi- nance. Upon Mann's request, Police Chief Crawford spoke on this issue, noting that they expect to receive many calls because of this, and that costs will be incurred to the City in terms of paying for impounds. He noted that the State Patrol spends approximately $10, 000 a year to impound cars off the freeway system. He explained that he 3 April 6, 1993 TRAFFIC CONTROL had asked the Public Safety Committee to discuss these items further before enacting the ordinance. BENNETT MOVED that this item be sent back to the Public Works Committee for further discussion, including input from Chief Crawford and others. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) City Transit Advisory Board. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1350 creating the City Transit Advisory Board, with regard to a transit system within the City of Kent, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. STREET (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2A) VACATION S 238th Street Vacation (STV-93-1) . This date has been set to consider an application by Oberto Sausage Company to vacate a portion of S. 238th Street. Woods declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and JOHNSON MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Orr seconded and the motion carried. ORR THEN MOVED to approve the Planning Department' s recommenda- tion of approval with five conditions to- vacate a portion of S. 238th Street and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon receipt of compensation at one-half the full appraised value thereof. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2B) Chestnut Ridge Annexation. This date has been set for the public hearing on the Chestnut Ridge Annexation. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker pointed out the location of the annexation on the map and noted that the residents of the area had sought annexation to the City. He noted that after a meeting-wifth the citizens and receipt of the 10% petition and the 60% petition, the City did a SEPA review, that the Boundary Review Board approved the annexation, and that notice of this hearing was published. He added that the proposed ordinance would annex the area subject to the City' s existing indebtedness. 4 April 6, 1993 ANNEXATION Woods declared the public hearing open. Judy Mellott, 20110 92nd Avenue So. , said that she just found out about this annexation today and asked what the zoning would be. Harris explained that all new annexations are temporarily zoned Single Family Residential, 20, 000 sq. ft. lots, and that the Planning Department then does an analysis of the area and makes a recommendation for the definitive zoning. He added that they will be in touch with citizens of the area to find out what their desires are. Ronald E. Harmon, 20627 95th Avenue So. , spoke in favor of the annexation. Wayne Luedeman, 20405 98th Place So. , voiced opposition to the annexation, noting that he had not been told about the 60% petition and had not been invited to any meetings. He said that the Planning Department had informed him that taxes would be about the same and expressed concern about regulations for animal control, building codes, assessments for improvements, zoning, and utilities. He urged the Council not to annex the area. Harris explained for Luedeman that one animal is allowed per 20, 000 sq. ft. Wickstrom explained that the water, sewer, and garbage services would remain the same, and that improvements to roads would have to be initiated by the property owners. He opined that property taxes in Kent would most likely be less. Howard Woodard, representing the Chestnut Ridge Home- owners Association, noted that many of the issues Mr. Leudeman is asking about were explained at a meeting between the residents and the City. He reaffirmed their wish to be in Kent and thanked Tom Brubaker, Jim Harris and the Traffic Depart- ment for their help. William Gamble, 20433 98th Place South, asked how annexation would benefit them. Harris explained that Kent has the best Police and Fire Departments in the state, as well as an award-winning Parks Department. He said that the Mayor and seven councilmembers are here to respond to citizens requests and needs, and that the City departments have staff who are dedicated to serving the Mayor, the Council and the citizens of Kent. Christi Bonner, 20436 94th Avenue So. , spoke in favor of annexation because of the Police protection which would be provided by the City. Doug Gesler, 9615 S. 203rd, agreed and encouraged the Council to approve the 5 April 6, 1993 ANNEXATION annexthereaarensixPolice peopleConedutyaatord allexplained ti that times, and that with shift overlaps there could be as many as ten or twelve. There were no further comments and ORR MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Mann seconded and the motion carried. Upon Mann' s question concern- ing notification to residents, Harris explained that after the City is approached by citizens requesting information on annexation, they meet with the residents, but that it is left to the interested citizens to get the word out to others. He stated that the City posted a public notice and advertised in the newspaper, but that they did not do a mailing to all residents of the area. He pointed out that residents representing over 60% of the assessed valuation of the area had signed the petition. The City Attorney noted that the Council authorized circulation of the 60% peti- tion, and that notice of this hearing was posted and published. He said that the City is not an active participant in this type of annexation, although they try to get information to the public. He clarified for Woods that this type of annexation is different from the recent West Hill Annexation process. Bennett noted that this has been discussed by the Public Works Committee and that the questions about public safety were answered at that time. HE MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3099 annexing the Chestnut Ridge Annexation Area. Orr seconded and the motion carried. COMMUNITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) DEVELOPMENT 1994 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) BLOCK GRANT Program Policies and Funding Levels. AUTHORIZA- PROGRAM TION to set April 20, 1993 , as the date for a public hearing to consider the 1994 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Policies and Funding Levels. REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) Venture 84 Rezone. The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of an application by Sound Ventures of Kent, acting on behalf of Budget Rent A Car, to rezone 2 . 52 acres from Gateway Commer- cial, GWC, to General Industrial, M3 . The 6 April 6, 1993 REZONE property is located on the west side of 84th Avenue S. , approximately 300 feet north of South 222nd Street. Planning Manager Satterstrom pointed out the location of the rezone and noted that development trends have shown that the land along East Valley Highway has been overzoned for commercial pur- poses. He added that this would be the third instance of a rezone back to the original indus- trial zoning while retaining the frontage of GWC on the property. ORR MOVED to accept the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of the Venture 84 Rezone with no conditions, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC SAFETY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) Appointment of Disaster Manager. The proposed resolution will provide the mechanism for the City of Kent to receive funds to help defray the costs incurred as a result of the January 20, 1993 , windstorm. This resolution is required under Federal Emergency Management regulations. Fire Chief Angelo noted that the Code Enforcement Department handles preparation and processing of the effects of a disaster. He noted that $102, 000 was spent as a result of the storm and that the City should get back approximately $60, 000-80, 000. He said that adoption of this resolution will authorize him to sign the required documents to receive the funds. MANN MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1352 appointing Chief Angelo as the agent for the City of Kent to receive Disaster Reimbursement funds. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) Sale of 800 MHz Radio/MDT System. Authority to negotiate the sale of the backbone of the 800 MHz Radio and MDT System was previously granted by the Council. Negotiations have resulted in a tenta- tive agreement which has been approved by Valley Communication's Administrative Board. In accord- ance with previous Council direction two capital accounts will be established, one for police and one for fire. As funds from the sale are received 7 April 6, 1993 PUBLIC SAFETY over the next four years, they will be divided equally between police and fire for completion of public safety bond related needs. The determi- nation of specific expenditures would be made through the Capital Improvement Program or through future individual requests of the respective departments. A market value lease of the land of the Cambridge site would be executed. Chief Angelo noted that this is the first 800 MHz trunking system in the State and that Kent was instrumental in the development of standards and parameters which could be used for a regional system. He noted that the City will still retain 1/4 ownership in the system and will have full use of the system. MANN MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to execute an agreement for the sale of the 800 MHz Radio and MDT Systems and that two separate capital accounts be established for completion of needs related to the recently approved public safety bond issue. Orr seconded and the motion carried. CONSTRUCTION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) STANDARDS Construction Standards. AUTHORIZATION to set May 4th as the public hearing date for the Public Works Construction Standards, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. FRANCHISE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4H) Heath Techna Franchise. The date has been set for the first reading of the Heath Techna Franchise agreement relating to the use of communication line duct bank facilities under and across S. 200th Street. Because this is a franchise, state law requires at least two Council readings of the ordinance before formal action is taken. Lubovich clarified that this is a communication line between two facilities owned by Heath Techna across a public right-of-way. BENNETT MOVED that the second reading of the Heath Techna Franchise Ordinance be set for April 20, 1993 . Orr seconded and the motion carried. 8 April 6, 1993 COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P) (ADDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WOODS) Councilmembers Excused Absence. APPROVAL of requests from Councilmembers Houser and White for excused absences from tonight's meeting. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) DEPARTMENT Budget Change for Correction Facility Security Improvements. AUTHORIZATION to approve a budget change for $21, 000 from the Criminal Justice Fund needed to make security improvements at the Kent Correctional Facility, as recommended by the Budget Committee. Lorna Rufener, Police Depart- ment Lieutenant, noted that an attempted break out at the Corrections Facility had occurred on January 6 involving a U. S. Marshall inmate. She noted the Police Department has been working with U.S. Marshalls and Gilbert Security to look at overall security at the Facility and explained that the Facility is doing 76% more bookings than they had in the past. To improve the security several items were recommended including cameras, additional monitor controls, high security roll bars, roof light/beacon and a security tool chest. This item had previously been approved by the Executive Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Acceptance of Traffic Safety Grant. APPROVAL of acceptance of $2, 348 from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to be used for the Drinking Driver Task Force supplies and program, as recom- mended by the Budget Committee. Lorna Rufener, Police Department Lieutenant, explained that a letter had been received from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission explaining that the additional money was available because of an underrun during fiscal year 1992 . These funds will be used for programs and the cost of pur- chasing supplies for the Drinking Driver Task Force. The Executive Committee recommended approval of acceptance of this grant. FIRE DEPARTMENT (BIDS - ITEM 5A) 1965 Crown Fire Coach Pumper and Miscellaneous Equipment. A 1965 Crown Fire Coach Pumper including some miscellaneous equipment has been declared surplus to the needs of the Kent Fire 9 April 6, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMENT Department. A call for bids was advertised and two bids were received as follows: first bid, Fire Protection District No. 5 Mason County, $10, 359; second bid, Whitman County Fire Protection District No. 7 , $10,502 . 65. Fire Administration recommends that the 1965 Crown Fire Coach Pumper including some miscellaneous equip- ment be awarded to the highest bidder, Whitman County Fire Protection District No. 7 , for the purchase price of $10, 502 . 65. MANN SO MOVED. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) RECREATION Rent American Legion Baseball Association commercial signs Installation at Kent Memorial Park. AUTHORIZATION for the Kent American Legion Baseball Association to install outfield wall signs on the outfield fence at Kent Memorial Park in exchange for improvements to the park, as recommended by the Parks Committee 3-0. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Rent Little League Field Use Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for Administration to amend, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, the existing field use agreement for the Uplands Playfields Nos. 1 & 2 with Kent Little League. This amend- ment will extend the term of the current agreement from one to five years in exchange for field use fees and base line fencing to be installed according to specifications set by Jack Ball, Parks Maintenance Superintendent. KENT WAR (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) MEMORIAL Funding for the Korean War Memorial. AUTHORIZATION for $1, 500 to support the con- struction of a Korean War Veterans Memorial, as requested by the Korean War Veterans Fund Raising Committee and recommended by the Council Budget Committee on March 22 , 1993 . The contribution would be part of an estimated $300, 000 budget toward which over $270, 000 has been raised to date. The Council approved a $1, 500 appropriation on April 21, 1992 conditioned on the availability of funds. The Budget Committee approved the request without restriction. Funds will come from 10 April 6, 1993 KENT WAR the Unencumbered General Fund and be charged to MEMORIAL its community events budget. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Reappointment to Human services commission. Confirmation of the reappointment of Judy Woods as the non-voting Council representative to the Human Service Commission. This is a one year term and will continue to 1/1/94 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Reappointment to Board of Adiustment. Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointment of Jack Cosby as a member of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Cosby' s reappointment will continue to 2/28/98 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) Appointments to Rent Saturday Market Advisory Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Aggie Mauritson, Linda Johnson, and Pat Williams as members of the Saturday Market Advisory Board. Ms. Mauritson will serve as Vendor Representative and will replace George Mast who resigned. Her appointment will continue to March 1996. Ms. Johnson will serve as an At Large/Citizen Representative and will replace Judie Sarff who resigned. Her appointment will continue to June 1995. Ms. Williams will serve as a Kent Merchant Re- presentative and will replace Faith Anderson who resigned. Her appointment will continue to September 1996. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through March 22 , 1993 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on March 31, 1993 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 3-16/3-31 128698-129265 $2 , 077 , 595. 32 11 April 6, 1993 FINANCE �groval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 4-5-93 Checks 182276-182678 $ 276, 024 .92 Advices 5817-6137 $ 334 ,472 .46 $ 610, 497 . 38 REPORTS Council President. Woods reminded the Council that the City of Kent is hosting the Suburban Cities meeting next Wednesday, April 14, in Renton. Planning Committee. Orr announced to the Council- members that the two wetlands proposals from the Planning Commission should be available and in their mailboxes next Wednesday. She added that the issue will appear on the agenda for April 20th. EXECUTIVE At 8 : 05 p.m. , Woods announced an executive SESSION session of approximately 30 minutes to discuss labor negotiations and a personnel issue. ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8 :45 p.m. Brenda Ja ob , CMC City Cle 12 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VENTURE 84 REZONE (RZ-92-3) I �L e 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No New Venture 84 Rezone,, f4-Z�) as approved by the City Council on April 6, 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO I� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C I I II li i I i it ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Kent to rezone certain property located on the west side of 84th Avenue South, approximately 390 feet north of South 222nd Street and more specifically identified as the western 445 feet of parcel #7759800040 . WHEREAS , an applicant has made a request to rezone 2 . 52 acres from the current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial , to M3 , General Industrial , in order to construct a 46, 080 square foot speculative warehouse building; and WHEREAS , the Planning Department recommends that the request be granted, subject to a single condition; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on said matter on February 3 , 1993 and recommended that the request to rezone the subject property from GWC, Gateway Commercial , to M3 , General Industrial be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Department and Hearing Examiner, and finds that such rezone shall be granted subject to the Owner' s compliance with the condition imposed by the Department of the i Hearing Examiner; NOW THEREFORE, I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ;. I I I i i I j !I HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Official Zoning Map of the City of ' Kent, as adopted by Ordinance, is amended to rezone from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M3 the following described property: PARCEL B That portion of the subject property, located on the west side of 84th Avenue South and north of South 222nd Street, consisting of the western 445 feet of parcel #7759800040 . the remaining portion of Parcel B and Parcel A which front 84th Avenue South will remain GWC zoning. Parcel A and B are fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein r if fully set forth. Section 2 . The approval of the Rezone is subject to the following condition: 1. Any subsequent change in the use of the proposed site shall be subject to a new traffic impact analysis to determine appropriate mitigation. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, I; approval and publication as provided by law. 'i DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR I I i 2 I III ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK Ii i zonnap.ord I it 3 I I EXHIBIT PARCEL A TRACT 4 OF SHINN'S VALLEY HOME ADDITION TO KENT AS PER THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS ON PAGE 22, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,EXCEPT THE EAST 187.00 FEET THEREOF. TOGETHER WITH AND/OR SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED INGRESS/EGRESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 25.00 FEET OF THE EAST 199.50 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 5.00 FEET THEREOF, AND OVER THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 35.00 FEET OF THE WEST 162.50 FEET OF THE EAST 174.50 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4, AND OVER THE SOUTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 55.00 FEET OF THE WEST 55.00 FEET OF THE EAST 67.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4, AND OVER THE FILET OF A CURVE WITH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE RADIUS POINT LOCATED 55.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND 87 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 4. PARCEL B THE EAST 187.00 FEET OF TRACT 4 OF SHINN'S VALLEY HOME ADDITION TO KENT AS PER THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS ON PAGE 22, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE EAST 12.00 FEET CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF KENT FOR STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7209150091. TOGETHER WITH AND/OR SUBJECTTO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED INGRESS/EGRESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 25.00 FEET OF THE EAST 199.50 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 5.00 FEET THEREOF, AND OVER THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 35.00 FEET OF THE WEST 162.50 FEET OF THE EAST 174.50 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4, AND OVER THE SOUTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 55.00 FEET OF THE WEST 55.00 FEET OF THE EAST 67.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4, AND OVER THE FILET OF A CURVE WITH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE RADIUS POINT LOCATED 55.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND 87 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 4. City of Kent - Planning Department PARCEL A M,.PER E4CLOSURE PARCEL 'B' ILI ALT.tiLL L jBLDG. IT L.T 111[10.1 0,S170-:BLDG. 'A' 11.700 1 f el )30, .IT S I T E P L A o• ro• .15, 3w rs• I 01Y APPLICATION NAME: Venture 84 NUMBER: #RZ-92-3 DATE: February 3, 1993 RF '!UEST: Rezone Alb- LEGEND Application site Site Plan City of Kent - Planning Department S 216TH ST > S x 2IBTH ST m r N r � C C m 222NO ST S 228TH ST n / S 228TH ST w c c z N 4PPLICATION NAME: venture 84 VUMBER: #RZ-92-3 DATE: February 3, 1993 REQUEST: Rezone -or- LEGEND Application site Vicinity Map Railroad tracks Kent City Limits City of Kent - Planning Department � s. zi vi. s*• f 1 moo Qb00 J/ ° n ` 4 S. ,Zz,o. 3.. I5. '.2V in. ST. APPLICATION NAME: Venture 84 NUMBER: ##RZ-92-3 DATE: February 3, 1993 REQUEST: Rezone -�. LEGEND Application site Zoning/Topography Map zoning boundary Kent City Limits Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HEATH TECHNA FRANCHISE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the second reading (review) and of Ordinance No. 31of granting Heath Techna Inc. , a franchise for ten years to construct, attach, maintain, repair, replace, operate and use communica- tion line duct bank facilities under and across S. 200th Street within the City of Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White' s approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3D Heath Techna Franchise Brubaker stated that Heath Techna Corporation wants to place a data communication transmission line under the street between two of their warehouses . The City has required a franchise from them because it goes across public right of way. Brubaker explained that this franchise, is for one isolated line. Jim White asked if a franchise fee is required. Brubaker responded that no fee is required and the bond requirement has also been eliminated. Essentially, this gives the City some control in the future and in the event we want to widen the street, Heath Techna will remove the line at their expense and relocate it. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the Heath Techna Franchise. Brubaker commented that the legal descriptions will be attached when the Franchise comes before Council . Brubaker also noted two readings are required; it will go before Council for a first reading on January 19th and then passed under the Consent calendar on February 2nd. Cable T.V. Franchise Brubaker explained that the current Cable T.V. Franchise is up for renewal with TCI Cablevision. The City has been in negotiations thru Brubaker and Don Olson for well over a year and have put together two ordinances; a master ordinance which sets the general parameters for any cable operator who comes into the City of Kent and the franchise ordinance which will specifically apply to TCI. Brubaker said that essentially the longer a franchise we grant, the more the cable company will be willing to cooperate with the City and provide additional services; the shorter the franchise term the less they are going to be willing to do. In this situation, there are some services the City wants to be able to provide and in an attempt to obtain . those services Brubaker stated that he has negotiated at this point, a 15 year franchise; if we shorten the franchise term they will start to bargain away some of the services . Brubaker explained that the cable T.V. industry is controlled by Federal' Law and the cable T.V. lobby has been powerful in the past. We do not have rate-setting authority; .we cannot cancel their franchise without a strong showing of basically a poor operation. The main bargaining tool is the term of the franchise. With the new cable law that was passed, it will give us potentially some rate-setting authority but we have to wait until the FCC issues some rules and regulations . Brubaker said the bargaining has resulted in the following - they will provide us with a live broadcast ability out of City Hall. They will install three remote control cameras in City Hall Chambers for live broadcasts of all Council meetings , Committee meetings, Hearing Examiner and any open 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, granting unto Heath Techna, Inc. , a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, the right, privilege, authority and franchise for ten years, to construct, attach, maintain, repair, replace, operate and use communication line duct bank facilities under and across South 200th Street within the City of Kent. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Franchise Granted 1. 1 Pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington (including, but not limited to, RCW 35A.47 . 040 and RCW 80.32 . 010) , the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation ("City") , hereby grants to Heath Techna Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Heath Techna") , subject to the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter, a franchise for a period of ten years, commencing_ on the effective date of this ordinance. 1. 2 This Franchise grants Heath Techna the right, privilege and authority to install a casing pipe as reflected in the attached map, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, for the specific purpose to insert a communication and data transmission wire under, across and through a portion of South 200 St. in the City of Kent (the "Franchise Area") , which Franchise 1 ii Area is legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which shall serve to or controlled by Heath Techna, which link two properties owned properties are described in Exhibits C and D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2 . Nonexclusive Franchise Grant 2 . 1 This Franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises which do not interfere with Heath Techna ' s rights under this Franchise. This Franchise shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using the Franchise Area in a manner consistent with this Franchise or affect its jurisdiction over the Franchise Area. The City shall retain power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, and improvements in, of or to South 200th Street, including the . Franchise Area, as the City may deem fit. Section 3 . Relocation of Heath Techna' s Facilities 3 . 1 Whenever the City undertakes (or causes to be undertaken at City expense) public improvements (e.g. improvements to City streets and/or City utilities) and such public improvements require the relocation of Heath Techna ' s then existing facilities within the Franchise Area, the City shall: 3 . 1. 1 provide Heath Techna, at least thirty (30) days prior to the City ' s commencement of activities requiring such relocation, written notice requesting such relocation; and 2 i 3 . 1. 2 provide Heath Techna with copies of pertine portions of the City's plans and specifications for such public improvements and a proposed location for Heath Techna ' s facilities so that Heath Techna may relocate its facilities to another location in order to accommodate the City' s project. After receipt of such notice and such other information, - Heath Techna shall relocate such facilities within the Franchise Area at no charge to the City. Heath Techna shall make every reasonable effort, subject to matters beyond its control , to complete the relocation of such Facilities so as not to delay the City ' s public improvement project. 3 . 2 In connection with the relocation of Heath Techna ' s Facilities . in accordance with subsection 3 . 1 above, Heath Techna may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its Facilities within the Franchise Area, submit to the City writt- „ alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate su'Ci. ' alternatives and advise Heath Techna in writing if one or more of the alternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Heath Techna shall relocate its Facilities within the Franchise Area as otherwise provided in subsection 3 . 1 . 3 . 3 Any condition or requirement imposed by the City upon any person or entity other than Heath Techna (including, without limitation, any condition or requirement imposed pursuant to any contract or in conjunction with approvals or permits for zoning, land use, construction or development) that requires the relocation of Heath Techna ' s Facilities shall be deemed to be a relocation within the purview of this subsection 3 . 3 . II 3 Section 4 . Placement of Facilities, Permits, Coordination of Activities, Excavations 4 . 1 Heath Techna shall at all times maintain its Facilities within the Franchise Area so as not to unreasonably interfere with the free passage of traffic or the use and enjoyment of adjoining property. Heath Techna shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety regulations during such period of construction as required by the ordinances of the City or the laws of the State of Washington. 4 . 2 Heath Techna shall , in carrying out any authorized activities within the Franchise Area, comply with all applicable City ordinances, codes, regulations, standards and procedures as now or hereafter amended, and shall obtain all necessary permits or approvals ; provided, however, that if any term or condition of this Franchise and any term or condition of such ordinances, codes, 4 regulations, standards, procedures, permits or approvals are in conflict, the term or condition of this Franchise shall govern and control. 4 . 3 Heath Techna and the City shall each exercise best efforts to coordinate construction work either may undertake within the Franchise Area so as to promote the orderly and expeditious performance and completion of such work as a whole. 4 . 4 If, at any time or from time to time, either Heath Techna or the City shall cause excavations to be made within the Franchise Area, the party causing such excavation to be made shall afford the other, upon receipt of a written request to do so, an opportunity to use such excavation, provided that: (a) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party causing the excavation to be made; and (b) such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties. 4 I Section 5. Restoration after Construction "W Whenever it shall be necessary for Heath Techna, in the exercise of its rights under this Franchise, to disturb the surface of the Franchise Area, Heath Techna shall restore the surface of the Franchise Area to at least a condition the same as it was in immediately prior to any such disturbance. All concrete encased monuments which have been disturbed or displaced by such work shall be restored pursuant to all federal, state and local standards and specifications . Heath Techna agrees to promptly complete all such restoration work at its sole cost and expense. Section 6. Lateral Support 6. 1 Whenever construction, installation or excavation of Facilities within the Franchise Area have caused or contribute to a condition that appears to substantially impair the later support of the Franchise Area, the Public Works Director may direct Heath Techna, at Heath Techna ' s own expense, to take such actions with respect to its Facilities within the Franchise Area so as not to impair the lateral support thereof. Section 7 . Indemnification 7 . 1 Heath Techna shall "defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Franchise agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. 5 7 . 2 The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Heath Techna ' s work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. 7. 3 Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Franchise agreement is subject to RCW 4 . 24 . 115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Heath Techna and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, Heath Techna ' s liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of Heath Techna ' s negligence. 7 . 4 IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES HEATH TECHNA' S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. 7 . 5 The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. section 8 . Insurance 8 . 1 Heath Techna shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Franchise agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Heath Techna, its agents, representatives, employees, subconsultants or subcontractors. 8 . 2 Prior to the adoption of this Franchise ordinance, Heath Techna shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 6 8 . 2 . 1 Automobile Liability insurance with limi no less than $1, 000, 000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 8 . 2 .2 Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1, 000, 00o combined single limit per occurrence and $2 , 000, 000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual ; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer' s liability. 8 . 3 Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of Heath Techna. 8 . 4 The City, its officers, officials, employees, agen' and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on tne - insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of Heath Techna and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. 8 . 5 Heath Techna's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the .insurer's liability. 8 . 6 Heath Techna 's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City shall be given thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail , return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. G_ Section 9 . Abandonment of Heath Techna' s Facilities 9 . 1 Any plan for abandonment or removal of Heath Techna's Facilities within the Franchise Area must be first approved by the Public Works Director, and all necessary permits must be obtained prior to such work. Section 10 . Modification 10. 1 This Franchise may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both parties, which specifically states that it is an amendment to this Franchise and is approved and executed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Franchise (including, without limitation, subsection 4 . 2 above) shall govern and supersede any permit, approval, license, agreement or other document required by or obtained from the City in, conjunction with the exercise (or failure to exercise) by Heath Techna of any and all rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or duties in and under this Franchise, unless such permit, approval, license, agreement or other document specifically: 10. 1. 1 references this Franchise; and 10. 1. 2 states that it supersedes this Franchise to the extent it contains terms and conditions which change, modify, delete, add to, supplement or otherwise amend the terms and conditions of this Franchise. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Franchise and the provisions of any such permit, approval, license, agreement or other document, the provisions of this Franchise shall control. 8 Section 11. Forfeiture and other Remedies 11. 1 If Heath Techna willfully violates or fails to ' comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Heath Techna by the City under the provisions of this Franchise, then Heath Techna shall, at the election of the Kent City Council , forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this Franchise may be revoked or annulled by the Council after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Heath Techna. 11. 2 The right of the City to declare a forfeiture pursuant to subsection 12 . 1 is a remedy in addition to, and is not a limitation of, the rights, remedies or actions available to either party by reason of the other party' s noncompliance with the terms and conditions of this Franchise. Section 12 . City ordinances and Regulations 12 . 1 Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City' s ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Franchise, including any reasonable ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. section 13 . Publication, Plan Review and Inspection Costs 13 . 1 The cost of the publication of this Ordinance shall be borne by Heath Techna. Additionally, all the City' s plan review and . inspection costs arising from or connected with the construction of the facilities contemplated to be built as a result of this franchise shall be borne by Heath Techna. 9 Section 14 . Acceptance 14 . 1 After the passage and approval of this ordinance and within sixty (60) days after such approval , this Franchise shall, if accepted by Heath Techna, be accepted by Heath Techna by its filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Heath Techna to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Heath Techna, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the sixty-day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 15 . Survival 15 . 1 With respect only to matters arising during the period of time this Franchise is in effect, the parties intend that any term or condition applicable to such matters shall survive the expiration or termination of this Franchise to the extent such survival can be reasonably inferred under the circumstances presented and to the extent such an inference is necessary to prevent substantial injustice to an injured party. 15 . 2 The terms and conditions of this Franchise shall be binding upon the parties ' respective successors and assigns. Section 16. Severability 16. 1 If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Franchise should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Franchise. ` " 10 Section 17 . Assignment 17 . 1 Heath Techna may not assign or transfer this Franchise without the written consent of the City Council of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 18. Notice 18 . 1 Any notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties under this Franchise agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified: City of Kent Director of Public Works 300 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Heath Techna Corp. Attn: Richard Klug, Vice-President of Finance Heath Tecna Aerospace Co. 19819 84th Avenue South Kent, Washington .98032 Section 25. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its execution; having first been submitted to the Kent City Attorney for approval ; after one introduction by the City Council at a regular meeting; after having been published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Kent; and finally, having been granted an approving vote of at least a majority of the City Council at a regular meeting. 11 rr/ DAN• KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK HTHTEKNA.WPF 12 I I .;.I ; � 1 ,• 4 A � • y _ /•c+\ s if}i I I :IIII lu I:II � is I��._ i ill I Innnu;l:=nnnl::i„ �i 4lllllii. L. '•i .,� mac, Iillr: %� V " I o'N'^�J `=1` i-a j':i li �ri Q aoY{ l�i+m • I : — 1.11 .EXHIBIT A • I HEATH TECNA AEROSPACE COMPANY COMMUNICATIONS LANES CROSSING ACROSS SOUTH 200th STREET BETWEEN PLANT No-1 and PLANT No. 3 Three J-inch conduits located •in a strip of land 3.0 feet wide and 1 .5 feet on either side of the following described line: A line perpendicular to the center line of South 200th Street , extending 30 feet each side of center line and being 280.68 feet West of the -East one quarter"horrid?`• of Section 1 , ' Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Kent, Wash- ington, containing 180 square feet, more or less. EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Heath Tecna Property r LQt Line A `m n Y Y TEAT PORTION OF H, RANGE 4AZT QUAw��ME�2�IAT_A2 , IN TjNGxCOOUNT"=F;��NGTON, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH. RFINGF. 4 ..ASTr LYING SOUTH OF TEE SOUT_L i+Y 20RGIN OF SOUTH 196TH STREET AND EZSTERLY O_ THE EAST ]DURGIN OF BIST AV�IrUE SO7TF AS TFWY WERw ESTABLISEED B`_' TEAT DEED R=CORDED UNDER RECORDING NuvBER 5345763; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 280 FEET OF T5E WF'-ST 263.19 =T THEREO=; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET TFiEREOF; EXCEPT THOSE. PORTIONS LYING WITHIN 2RTY--kRY STATE. HIGF3WT.Y NnME'R 5; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS DEEDED TO TF " CITY OF !U,= 3Y DEEDS_ RECORD D U.'i, R RECORDING NUF•.BERS 7812220012, 7905290355 AND 8808150073; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION DFSC_RIEED AS FOLLOWS: rC}' BEGINNING AT A POINT ON TEE WEST 2S71.RGIN OF PRIY•ARY S^hT HIGH` NU r==' S. SAID POINT BEING 179.06 FEET SOUTH OF T� NORTH LM OF SAID SOU :.T. .AST QIInR�2 OF T-r- CV NOR7=--M.ST QUARTER OF SECTION 1; TEENCE WEST ALONG THEESOIITH=.I y;S RGIZv OF SOUTH 196TS STRZET TO A PO2'�� W ICH IS 411.11 FEET EAST OF .i^M-.-. .EAST=RLY y_'.RGiN OF 81S= AVENua SOUTH; TEENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO SAID EASTERLY 19C-GIN 365 TEMENCE EAST PARALLEL. TO SAID SO 1GI -%�—rY Y.ARGIN TO TEE W-STAY 2-AF2GIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WESTF-RLr He�RG2N TO T� PORT 0` B GINN22rG' g o ^a N b pd G W GC r c! x Y r • n. • e CE Q1 EXHIBIT 11 21)92 13 : 5 ll ::':i °ur711 • '.yam'S-., �-•r;J �_ .... •' .. • . .. •• .. .._ .. _��A• ;_ ...'tea.. .�.-ram'•' r- 'LEGAL DESCRIPTION" Parcel A. That portion of the Borth half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 1, To;.-nship 22 North, Range 4 East, ,- N.MI-, in Kzag County, Washington described as follows: . _ Beginning at the Northeast corner of said subdivision: . Thence South along the East line of said subdivision 219 .82 feet; thence North 89*24144' Kest 990.05 feet; thence North parallel to the East line of said subdivision to . the-'North line of said subdivision; ?forth line 990. 11 feet, more or Less, thence Easterly along said to the point of beginning; EXCEPT those portions conveyed to King County and to the City of Kent for streets by deeds recorded ender King. County Recording . Nos. 749615, 5999070, 73050700132 7903090116 and 790309113. Parcel. B: That portioa of the North half of the `_iortheast quarter of the Southeast quarter, Section 1, ToT.nship 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County, Washington described as follovs: yommenc:Lng at the Northeast corner of said subdivision: thence South_aiong_ the . East line of said subdivision 219.82 feet to the true point of beginning_- thence North 89024-44" West 990.05 feet; thence- South- parallel to the East line of said subdivision 224.18 feet; ' . thence South 89°39152' East 990.02 feet ' to East line of said subdivision; : thence North along said East line Z19. 32 feet to the True Poirt nf Be;inaiug: ,! EXCEPT those portions conveyed to Kiang couaty and the City of ' ' Kent for streets by deeds recorded under~ King County recording--- - _Nos. 749615. ' 7901290124•r .and 7901290125- : ter.. � • - _ -.n-- _ _ e-� .. � _•% - —_ Y• ^.._..i-. �-. - -. • \• .) .'I�w —:•ti '�'• � '/.�;_Y•C.,y -I•.= •' • _ �'•`;�•_ _'-i••`,a. •• - I BIT - T fy..Y�, j^S� ;,.� � :.t �..f ti:`_ :S. 3• '^. 1 •�'�y�: -'11:i •SS.' •4:a� .. - .r• '• Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF PUGET POWER GRANT - SENIOR HOUSING 2 . As recommended by the Operations Committee on April 6 ccep ance o e Pu et Power Grant for senior housing in the amount of $23 , 470. The City met some energy codes and spent about $18, 000 in addition to the original contract with Bellewood Corporation, and is therefore eligible to receive this grant to help offset some of the costs. 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 2-0. White not present but approved placement on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X1 FISCALIPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended ,41! Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E P�/GET G ��,� POAA017 COMFORT PLUST"" AGREEMENT ■ ■ COMFORT Agreement No. P L U S AGREEMENT made this 23rdday of March . 19 93 , by PUGET SOUND POWER& LIGHT COMPANY("Puget") and City of Kent ("Participant"). AGREEMENTS Puget and Participant agree as follows: 1. Premises. Participant shall have installed the energy-efficient measures described in Exhibit A("Measures")at site address: 615 W Harrison Kent WA consisting of 1 buildings 94 units(the"Premises").Participant represents that he/she is the owner or builder/developeror has the lawful authority to make the statements herein on behalf of the owner or builder/developer of the Premises. Participant shall promptly notify Puget of all change orders that affect the measures.Puget will review the change orders,determine the resulting changes, if any, in Exhibit A. 23,470.00 the"Grant" after installation of the Measures subject to 2. Grant.Puget will grant Participant the amount of$ ( )a verification and certification by the Company that the measures in Exhibit A have been installed. 3. Disclaimer.Participant expressly acknowledges that Puget's involvement with respect to the Measures,including but not limited to any energy evaluation or inspection by Puget of the Premises or the Measures,is solely undertaken in connection with furnishing the Grant. This Agreement does not provide for the purchase and installation of the Measures and Puget is not responsible for such purchase and installation.With regard to the projection and evaluation of energy savings made by Puget at the request of Participant,the Participant understands that the projection is based on typical and normal conditions including, but not limited to, climate, construction of the Premises, and operation of appliances, lighting and equipment. PUGET HAS NOT AND DOES NOT MAKE (AND PARTICIPANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PUGET DOES NOT MAKE)ANY IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS) REPRESENTATION OR PROMISE WITH RESPECT TO EITHER (A) THE MEASURES,(B)ANY MATERIALS AND LABOR REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE MEASURES,OR(C)THE INSTALLATION OF THE MEASURES. 4. Release.Participant releases Puget from any and all claims,losses,harm,costs,liabilities,damages and expenses directly or indirectly resulting from or in connection with either(a)the Measures,(b)any materials and labor required for the installation of the Measures,or(c) installation of the Measures, or(d)the actual savings in energy consumption that will result from the Measures. 5. Schedule 83.The relevant terms and conditions of Puget's Schedule 83 are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.A copy of the presently effective portion of Schedule 83 is attached as Exhibit B. 6. Entire Agreement.All exhibits hereto are incorporated into this Agreement.This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements with respect to the Measures. No change, amendment or modification of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless set forth in a written amendment to this Agreement signed by both parties. Executed as of the date first hereinabove written. ' Puget Sound Power Participant_ &Light Company Supervisor of e 61 H!)(K�A�'TIJ( Date 3� Residential Customer Programs Date 0 h- l(-CA 857.10 10-88 DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL-DIVISION OFFICE CUSTOMER PROGRAMS YELLOW-CUSTOMER COPY G&d/' gnb COMFORT PLUS'" homes meet all Super GOOD CENTS standards Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PARKING POLICY REVIEW 2 . 'UMMARY STATEME As recommended b the Public Wor ommitte uthorization or the Mayor to sign the City/County ent or the review of the City' s Parking Policy/ Requirements with respect to the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction law and the acceptance of a $20, 000 grant for same, including the establishment of its budget 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes, City/County Agreement and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 2, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM w\ RE: PARKING POLICY REVIEW & CTR ADMINISTRATION GRANT The Public Works Department is requesting that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the City/County Agreement for the above referenced project. The primary purpose of this project is to provide both financial and technical assistance to local governments to conduct the parking policy review required by the Commute Trip Reduction Law. The law calls for affected local governments to review parking policies related to employers and major worksites and to make revisions compatible with the law and its guidelines. Revision of parking policies to encourage the use of transit is also called for in the Growth Management Act Countywide Planning Policies. Grant funding for this project is available in the amount of $20, 000 . The Mayor has previously signed this agreement therefore, this action is only to establish the budget. ACTION: Authorize the signing of the Agreement and the establishment of the budget for same. Weshinglon Stale Department of Transpo on 1lIAEr.t�T - W.S.D.O.T.USE ONLY ... FEDERAL AID PROJECT NUMBER AGENCY NAME&BILLING ADDRESS _.,: ••� CITY OF KENT* WgSHINGTON STATE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NUMBER 220 4th Avenue S CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENT _ i 9 � O Kent, WA. 98032-5895 The Local Agency having complied, or hereby agreeing to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1)Title 23, U.S. Code Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-102 and A-128, (4) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation and, (5)the Fed- erakaid Project Agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government,relative to the above project,the Wash- ington, State Department of.Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proceed on the project by a separate notification. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line s., col umn(3) without written authority by the State, subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administrator. All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Name Parking Policy Review & CTR Administration Length' Termini Description of Work See Attachement ESTIMATE OF FUNDING TYPE OF WORK (1) (2) (3) ESTIMATED TOTAL ESTIMATED AGENCY ESTIMATED PROJECT FUNDS FUNDS FEDERALFUNDS P.E. a. Agency Work ....L9................ 5b8....... b. Other - ............:............. C. State Services ;l 'j 500 '" -68 y 1 432 d. Total PE Cost Estimate (a+b+c) 23.,122 3,122 20,000 Right-of-Way e. Agency Work ............. .5...... ....... `.. .... ....:.........:......... I. Other ........................ ........................ g. State Services h. Total R/W Cost Estimate (e+f+g) Construction i. Contract ........................ j. Other ........................ ........................ ........................ k. Other ........................ ........................ I. Other m. Total Contract Costs (i+j+k+l) Construction Engineering n. Agency ........................ ........................ o. Other ........................ ........................ p. State Forces q. Total Const. Engineering (n+o+p) r. Total Const. Cost Estimate (m+q) /c S. TOTAL COST ESTIMATE 23_1��_ T12n� 20,000 OF THE PROJECT(d+h+r) "Federal participation in Construction Engineering (q)is limited to 15%of the Total Contract Costs.(line m,column 3) The Federal-aid participation rate in this project will be determined by the Federal Government.The parties expect that it will be LIL %, v however, it is understood that the rate may vary. The Local Agency agrees that this agreement is entered without relying upon any representation by the State made outside of this contract,or contained herein, as to what the Federal participation rate will be. It further agrees that it will not condition any future actions with respect to the project covered by this agreement upon past, current, or future representations as to the Federal participation rate. The dollar amount of Federal participation cannot exceed the amount shown in line s.,column(3).All costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. CONSTRUCTION METHOD OF FINANCING (Check Method Selected) E AD&AWARD: : . METHOD A ;_-Advance Payment•Agency Share of Total Construction Cost(Based on Contract Award)... ...... .....( ' ) METHOD B ."_'Withhold From Gas Tax the Agency's Share of Total Construction Cost(line r.,col.2) in the amount of$ at$ per month for months.. { } LOCAL FORCE OR LOCAL AD&AWARD METHOD C Agency Cost Incurred with Partial Reimbursement ........ .......( x ) w The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23, regulations and policies and procedures, and as a condi- tion to payment of the Federal funds obligated; it,accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth below. Adopted by official action on :July 21 .19 92 Resolution/Ordinance No. 1317 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: Assistant Secretary for Local Programs FEB 2 G 1993 Date E.ecuted PROVISIONS I SCOPE OF WORK V COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS The Agency shall provide all the work, labor, materials and services The Agency shall not incur any Federal-aid participation costs on any necessary to perform the project which is described and set forth in detail classification of work on this project until authorized in writing by the State in the"Project Description"and'Type of Work." , for each classification.The classifications of work for projects are: When the State acts for and on behalf of the Agency, the Slate shall 1. Preliminary Engineering up to and including approval be deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the services 2. Preparation of Plans,Specifications,and Estimates described and indicated in"Type of Work"on the face of this agreement,in 3. Right-ol-Way Acquisition accordance with plans and specifications as proposed by the Agency and 4. Project Construction approved by the Slate and Federal Highway Administration. In the event that Right-of-Way acquisition for,or actual construction of When the Stale acts for the Agency but not subject to the right of con- the road for which Preliminary Engineering is undertaken is not started by Irol by the Agency,the State shall have the right to perform the work subject the closing of the fifth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the agree- to the ordinary procedures of the Slate and Federal Highway Administra- ment is executed\lhe Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of lion. Federal funds paid'to the Agency under the terms of this agreement. (See Section VIII.) II DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to pro The State is acting to fulfill the responsibilities to the Federal Govern- vide the initially planned complete facility,within the limits of this project,will conform to at least the minimum values set by approved AASHTO design ment by the administration of this project.The Agency agrees that the State standards applicable to this class of highways,even though such additional shall have the full authority to carry out this administration.The State shall work is financed without Federal-aid participation. review, process and approve documents required for Federal-aid reim- The Agency agrees that on Federal-aid highway construction projects bursement in accordance with Federal requirements. If the State adver- the current Federal-aid regulations which apply to liquidated damages rel- tises and awards the contract,the State will further act for the Agency in all ative to the basis of Federal participation in the project cost shall be appli- matters concerning the project, as requested by the Agency. If the Local cable in the event the contractor fails to complete the contract within the Agency advertises and awards the project the Slate shall review the work contract time. to insure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. VI PAYMENT AND PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT III PROJECT ADMINISTRATION The total cost of the project,including all review and engineering costs Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on and other expenses of the Stale, is to be paid by the Agency and by the this project as requested by the Agency and described in the "Type of Federal Government. Federal funding shall be in accord with the Surface Work"above. In addition, the State will furnish qualified personnel for the Transportation Assistance Act 1978, Title 23, United Stales Code, as supervision and inspection of the work in progress.On local agency adver- amended, and Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-102 and tised and awarded projects,the supervision and inspection shall be limited A-128. The State shall not be ultimately responsible for any of the costs of to ensuring all work is in conformance with approved plans,specifications the project.The Agency shall be ultimately responsible for all costs associ- and Federal-aid requirements.The salary of such engineer or other super- ated with the project which are not reimbursed by the Federal Government. visor and all other salaries and costs incurred by State forces upon the Nothing in this,agreement shall be construed as a promise by the State as project will be considered a cost thereof. All costs related to this project to the amount or nature of Federal participation in this project. incurred by employees of the State in the customary manner on highway 1. Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way Acquisition and Audit payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the project. Costs. IV AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS The Agency will pay for Agency incurred costs on the project. Follow- ing such payments,vouchers shall be submitted to the State in the format All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expendi- prescribed by the Stale, in quadruplicate, not more than one per month. tures kept by the Agency,are to be maintained in accordance with proce- The State will reimburse the Agency up to the amount shown on the face dures prescribed by the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Slate of this agreement for those costs eligible for Federal participation to the uditor's Office, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Washington extent that such costs are directly attributable and properly allocable to this .Jepartmeht of Transportation. The records shall be open to inspection by project. Expenditures by the Local Agency for the establishment, mainte- the State and Federal Government at all reasonable times and shall be nance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not retained and made available for such inspection for a period of not less be eligible for Federal participation. than three years from the final payment of any Federal-aid funds to the The Slate will pay for State incurred costs on the project. Following Agency.Copies of said records shall be furnished to the State and/or Fed- payment,the Stale shall bill the Federal Government far reimbursement of eral Government upon request. those costs eligible for Federal participation to the extent that such costs )T I40-009(Rev.12M)-F hearing, with Council adoption on May 4th. Committee unanimously recommended Council approval for the public hearing and first reading of the Cable T.V. Franchise for April 20th. Brubaker requested an Executive Session immediately following the meeting. Parking Policy Review Wickstrom stated that this agreement is associated with the City's parking requirements in relationship to the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction law. Under the agreement, the City will receive $20, 000 (grant) for this effort. Although the Mayor has already signed this, as a procedural matter we need Council authorization for same establishing the budget. Committee unanimously recommended approval. 196th/200th St Corridor Interagency Agreement Wickstrom stated that this is a draft agreement between the City and County for the 196th/200th street project. The County is paying their share and every year the County budgets for the improvement and every year they are required to enter into a new agreement to do so. Wickstrom stated that this gives us $2, 080, 000 to spend . for the project. Wickstrom said that the reason this agreement is in draft. form, is that dollar figure may increase. Committee unanimously recommended Council authorization for the Mayor to sign this agreement. Van Doren Way Vacation (64th Ave to S. 228th St) Wickstrom stated there is a proposed development within the plat of Van Doren's Landing which may need to vacate Van Doren Way. This is a major potential development that the builder would need to occupy in July and in order to do so we want to give the developer tentative approval now, so that between now and April 20th, if the developer comes in with his formal vacation request, we can then process it at the April 20th Council meeting. Committee unanimously recommended approval. Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds Wickstrom explained there was only enough time to check the three low bids prior to putting the Committee's packets together. However, after checking the remaining bids the original fourth bidder, Briggs Construction, ended up being the low bidder with a 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PLANT & GARDEN SHOW ORDINANCE 2 . Y STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee doption of Ordinance No. 3101 authorizing issuance eet occupation permit to Kent Downtown Inc. , for a public event, and closing certain streets in conjunction with said permit. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes, ordinance and vicinity map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show; granting a street occupation permit to Kent Downtown, Inc. for a public event; specifying terms and conditions for such street use and closing certain streets in conjunction with said permit. WHEREAS , Kent Downtown, Inc. is sponsoring an event in downtown Kent to be known as the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show; and WHEREAS , Kent Downtown, Inc. desires to obtain a street occupation permit pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 6 . 08 and further desires to seek closure of certain streets in downtown Kent in conjunction with said permits; and WHEREAS , the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show is a result of the efforts of a number of private volunteers, citizens, civic groups, and nonprofit organizations ; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent is not the sponsor nor operator of the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show; and - 1 - WHEREAS, it is appropriate to clarify the rights, responsibilities and relationships of those parties involved in the permitted activities as well as the conditions for closure of streets for said event; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . A street occupation permit is hereby authorized to be issued by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Chapter 6. 08 of the Kent City Code from Friday, June 11 , 1993 , 7 : 00 p.m. , until Sunday, June 13 , 1993 , 11: 00 p.m. , for the following described public areas and right-of-ways which will be closed to normal vehicle traffic during the term of the permit except as otherwise noted below: (A) Meeker Street from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue, (B) 1st Avenue from Meeker Street to Titus Street (Titus to remain open) , (C) 2nd Avenue from Meeker Street to Harrison Street (Harrison to remain open) . Section 2 . The street use permit provided in Section 1 above is granted to Kent Downtown, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "User") and its successors and assigns. By this permit, the User is authorized to conduct a public event on said public property and right-of-way, to erect booths, conduct lawful and licensed games, provide entertainment, operate or authorize food 2 - and beverage services, and conduct such other activities consistent with a public event at the times and in accordance with the provisions in Section 1. Section 3 . The permit granted hereby is conditioned upon and subject to. User' s satisfaction of the following conditions : 3 . 1 . LICENSES AND TAXES . The User shall be liable for, and shall pay throughout the term of this use, all license and fees covering the business and activities conducted on the premises, and all unemployment insurance, social security, workers ' compensation and other obligations applicable to its activities, and otherwise fulfill all fiscal obligations imposed by law or contract. 3 . 2 . UTILITIES. The User, at the User' s sole expense, shall provide, or shall otherwise pay for, when due, all costs for providing all utilities and other services and installation occasioned by the User ' s requirements. The City shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage caused by or resulting from any interruption or failure of utility services due to any causes whatsoever, except the City' s sole negligence. 3 . 3 . LIABILITY . 3 . 3 . 1. Indemnification: Pursuant to Kent City Code 6 . 08 . 110 , the User, its successors or assigns shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, actions, damages and/or judgments whatsoever arising out - 3 - of any and all activity, use and occupation of said public property and right-of-way pursuant to the subject permit including claims arising by reason of accident, injury or death caused to persons or property of any kind unless caused by the city' s sole negligence. 3 .3 . 2 . Assumption of Risk: The placement and storage of personal property on said public right-of-way by the User shall be the responsibility of, and the sole risk of the User. 3 . 3 . 3 . Insurance: Pursuant to Kent City Code 6 . 08 . 100 , during the term of this permit and any extension thereof, the User shall secure and maintain a policy of standard form comprehensive general liability insurance with an insurance._. company licensed to do business in the State of Washington, providing protection and indemnification against any and all claims for injury or disability to person, damage to property or for loss of life, which may arise from or be related to this activity or the permit granted herein, including the liability of the City its officers, officials , agents or employees for such to the User and any of the User' s officers , employees and agents, and any liability of the User as such to the City, its officers, employees and agents, arising out of or in connection with the occupancy and use of the public right-of-way as well as any and all claims and risks in connection with any acts or omissions performed by User by virtue of the rights granted pursuant to this permit. Said policy limits shall be in the amount of one million dollars ($1, 000 , 000) for injury to or loss of life of any individual person; in the aggregate for personal injuries 4 - suffered in each occurrence; and for property damage suffered in each occurrence. Said policy must specifically name The City of Kent, its officers, employees and elected officials as additional insured parties thereunder and must stipulate that the coverages provided by said policy shall not be terminated, reduced, or otherwise changed in any respect without providing at least thirty (30) days. prior written notice to The City of Kent. In any event, no termination, reduction or change in coverage shall occur after May 12 , 1993 , or 30 days prior to the scheduled event for which this permit has been issued. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the failure of the User to comply with the provision of this section shall subject this Street Use Permit to immediate termination without notice and without recourse by any person in order to protect the public interest . The applicant shall furnish a certificate of such insurance coverage to the City prior to issuance of permit, and may be required, at the City ' s discretion, to provide a copy of the entire insurance policy. 3 . 3 . 4 . Adjustments of Claims : The User shall provide for the prompt and efficient handling of all claims from third parties for bodily injury, property damage or theft arising out of the activities of the User under this permit. The User agrees that all such claims, whether processed by the User or User' s insurer, either directly or by means of an agent, will be handled by a person with a permanent office in the Kent-Seattle area. - 5 - 3 . 4 . USE AND CARE OF PREMISES . 3 . 4 . 1. General Condition: The premises shall at all times be kept in a neat, clean, safe and sanitary condition, and kept and used in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and ordinances of The City of Kent, and in accordance with all authorized rules and regulations of the King County Health Department, Kent Fire Marshal , Kent Building Inspector, and other proper officers of The City of Kent, at the sole cost and expense of the User. The User shall not permit any waste, damage, or injury to the public property or right-of-way; shall not permit any objectionable noise or odor to escape or to be admitted from said public areas or permit anything to be done upon said premises that in any way will create a nuisance. 3 . 4 . 2 . Alterations: The User shall not make, or cause to be made, any alteration, addition or improvement in said public right-of-way other than those authorized above without first obtaining the written consent of the City for such work. 3 . 4 . 3 . Access: The City reserves for itself, its officers, employees, agents and contractors, free access to said premises at all reasonable times for the purposes of emergency response and other public safety demands, inspection, cleaning, or other City responsibilities and for private local access as determined to be appropriate and/or necessary by the Public Works Director. 3 . 5 . NON DISCRIMINATION. The User shall comply with all federal , state and local laws and ordinances prohibiting 6 - discrimination in employment or public accommodation with regard to age, sex, race, color, creed, national origin, marital status or physical or mental handicap. 3 . 6. RELATIONSHIP. In no event shall the City be construed, or held to have become in any way or for any purpose a partner, associate, or joint venturer of the User or any party associated with the User in the conduct of the User' s activities relating to the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show. This permit does not constitute the User the agent or legal representative of the City for any purpose whatsoever. 3 . 7 . AMENDMENTS . The City expressly reserve the right to amend the terms of this permit from time to time as may be necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Provided, however, that no amendment, alternation or modification of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be valid and binding unless made in writing to the User within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of said amendment, alternation or modification. 3 . 8 . NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The City does not waive full compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit by acceptance of the permit fees. No waiver of default by the City of any of the terms, covenants and conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the User shall be construed as, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. - 7 - 3 . 9 . SURRENDER OF PREMISES . At the expiration or termination of this permit, including any extensions thereof, whichever is earlier, the User shall quit and surrender said premises, without notice and in as good condition as received at commencement of the term, ordinary wear and tear uncontrollable by the User excepted. 3 . 10 . CONSTRUCTION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. This street use permit shall be construed under all the applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the United States , State of Washington, County of King and the City of Kent in case of a dispute between the parties . Jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be in King County Superior Court. If legal action is instituted, the User agrees to pay - all of the City ' s reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in connection therewith. 3 . 11 . The User shall not interfere with the City ' s maintenance and use of the right-of-way, or the operation of the Kent Saturday Market or other licensed businesses and premises. The User shall also be responsible for obtaining necessary permits for use of property administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. 3 . 12 . The City of Kent, its agents and employees, will perform no maintenance, repair work of any kind on User' s installations, equipment, or appurtenances without first obtaining permission from the User. Provided, however, the City may perform such maintenance, repair or work in an emergency. 8 - 3 . 13 . INVALIDITY OF PROVISIONS . Should any term, provision, condition or other portion of this permit be held to be inoperative, invalid or void, the same shall not affect any other term, provision, condition or other portion of this permit; and the remainder of this permit shall be effective as if such term, provision, condition or portion had not been contained herein. Section 4 . FEES AND CHARGES 4 . 1. FEE . The fee for the above identified permit shall be twenty-five dollars ($25 . 00) payable in advance to the City Treasurer at Kent City Hall , 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 on or before May 12 , 1993 . A copy of User' s proof of insurance certificate shall be submitted at the time this fee is paid. 4 . 2 . AUDIT. The User shall permit the City, as City deems necessary, to inspect and audit in Kent, Washington at any and all reasonable times, all pertinent books and records of the User and any subcontractors or other person or entity that is in connection with, or related to the User under this permit to verify the accuracy of accounting records, including trust accounts if any; and shall supply City with, or shall permit the City to make, a copy of any books and records and any portion thereof, upon the City ' s request. 4 . 3 . The User shall have the right to charge user fees or festival permits for the areas described in Section 1, above. The User shall also be granted the authority to charge user fees - 9 - or festival permits to street vendors and merchants within two blocks of the area described in Section 1 above. The User' s right to charge festival permit and user fees shall extend only for the term of this street use permit, and shall not apply to merchants and businesses with current business licenses within the areas designated herein. Section 5 . An authorized representative of user shall execute an agreement with the City confirming acceptance of the conditions herein. The Mayor is authorized to execute said agreement and such other documents necessary to the administration of this ordinance. Section 6 . Two hour parking restrictions as provided in Chapter 9 . 38 Kent City Code for the following streets are eliminated during the period of the Downtown Kent Plant and Garden Show, and shall not be enforced during said period: Central Avenue to Union Pacific Railroad and James Street to Willis Street. Section 7 . A sufficient number of handicap parking spaces shall be provided in close proximity to festival site on 2nd Avenue between Gowe St. and the post office driveway. Section 8 . Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 9 . Effective Date. Pursuant to Leonard V. Bothell , 87 Wn. 2d 847 (1976) , this ordinance shall take effect - 10 - and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of , 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK kentdntn.ord - 11 - PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE APRIL 7, 1993 PRESENT: JIM BENNETT ED WHITE PAUL MANN JACK SPENCER DON WICKSTROM LINDA JOHNSON TOM BRUBAKER MR & MRS RUST GARY GILL KEN TETERINGTON JACK WAGNER COUNCILMAN JIM WHITE - ABSENT Kent Covenant Church Mann stated that he felt this issue has not yet been resolved. Wickstrom stated that the issue is not with us; the issue is that King County will not allow the Church to put a private sewer line on the County' s public right-of-way. Wickstrom stated that the Church's LID did not materialize, and the City allowed them to go with an on-site private side sewer type lift station. Wickstrom ~ said that in order to connect to our system, they would have to run the force main in King County right of way. King County has a policy which will not allow them to run a private force main within their right of way. Wickstrom also stated that we do not take over operation and maintenance of a private side sewer (force main) . After further discussion it was determined that a King County road permit is required to be signed off by the City. Bennett suggested to Jack Wagner that the Church representatives go back to the County and clear up this issue. Gill stated that if they get a response from the County and if they need to make application for a right of way permit, Wagner should then contact the City to sign the permit. Downtown Kent Plant & Garden Show Linda Johnson, of the Downtown Partnership, has requested permission, by ordinance, to sponsor a Plant & Garden Show from 7 :00 P.M. June llth to 11: 00 P.M. June 13th. Johnson requested that certain streets be closed during this event. Johnson asked the Committee for action on this item so that it can be brought forward to Council on April 20th. Committee unanimously recommended approval. 1 z CLOUDY ST M j W LOU Y r g W � U Z E Z Y to*- a RT z s ya z z _ 1 AIN ES ST ,�_. . 4 .M ST j t $ i PIONEE �QQ PROJECT LOCATION < Z Z MILWAt'Kh: : f- Yj IPLA AO) > > Sf ST < z . < W SMITH ST = z Z C z ( Z F- QQ R1, i0 ds ST Z W HARRISON ST Z ` J W MEEKER4 2 ST t �•�•��� ME p' Z y! A� uunG =� < S b �< ` W < G OWE St E (30 rREET z LLIS S t a = ENT ` > LEM Hal ° 516 TCHG4c ;i - < SCH z ra W TITU STJ: 167 > P. j� con v SAAR < ST E PA t K' ST �� SAAR A W� WILLIS ST i > > co < N w 516 a < < .x,, W RO ST * f RU tELI W W `��' PLANT AND GARDEN SHOW Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SALES OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT 2 . S �4RY-ST As recommended by the Public Works Committee Authorization o�— -sa3e of-surgs�us equipmen at the nex State auction. Disposal of this equipment was approved in the 1993 bu t as a way of reducing Equipment Rental expenses. 7� 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes, list of surplus equipment and memorandum from Public Works Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOX YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended of Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3H DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 2, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM O�) RE: SALE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT The enclosed list of equipment was approved in the 193 budget for surplusing as a means of reducing Equipment Rental expenses . ACTION: Declare this equipment as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State Auction. GITY OF KEW MAR 23 1993 MEMORANDUM ENGINEF-HiN(i UEr s. DATE: March 19th, 1993 TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manage .� THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Manage �� SUBJECT: Sale of Surplus Equipment I am requesting approval to sell the following pieces of equipment at the next State of Washington auction. Disposal of these pieces of equipment was approved in the budget proposal as a way of reducing expenses for 1993 and are no longer needed. #109 1974 Case 350 Dozer Serial #3054869 This unit is in need of expensive repair to tracks and sprockets. It is also too small for most of our uses. When needed, we will rent a machine from outside rental company. #124 1981 Unimasco Paint Striper Serial #56147 This machine is 12 years old and used for parking lots. We still have one machine of this type. #151 1975 Miller Paver Serial #091 A Not used much. We will farm out such work in the future. #832 1969 Flexible Sewer Rodding Trailer Serial #D14031 This unit has been a backup for #405. If an emergency exists, we can borrow a machine from Auburn. #835 1970 NORPAC Saw Trailer Serial #69118 #D16013 Can be surplused. We will substitute with other trailers. #647 1987 Mott Mower Serial #8906 This is not part of the budget proposal but should be disposed of. #647 was replaced in 1991 with a new unit. It has a vibration and needs expensive repairs. It is no longer needed. JS/map B:ER003 Street Cleanina Wickstrom stated that staff talked with our street sweeping contractor and at no cost to us, he is willing to sweep the downtown area between 4 : 00 - 6: 00 on Mondays and the other two days, would be his normal time of sweeping. Wickstrom stated this will not cost us any extra money and he can work with the crews he has. Sale of Surplus Equipment Wickstrom stated that we have a list of equipment approved in the 193 budget as a cost saving measure to declare as surplus. Wickstrom requested that these items be declared surplus so they can go to the State auction. Committee unanimously recommended approval. Cable T.V. Franchise Brubaker circulated copies of the draft Master Cable T.V. Ordinance and the draft TCI Franchise Ordinance, as well as a Bulletin from the cable consultant regarding the impact of the recent Federal regulations. Brubaker requested approval of the Ordinance for first reading and public hearing at the next Council meeting on April 20th. Brubaker noted that there will be some technical amendments. Brubaker stated that what we have now under our current contract is a 5% franchise fee; 36 channels and one public access channel; one government channel and two education channels. Under the new contract we will have a 5% franchise based on expanded definition of gross receipts which increase the City' s income approximately $100, 000 per year. TCI will pay the City its actual cost to negotiate this franchise; the new franchise sets specific customer service and customer response time requirements; it gives the City specific authority to set rates if the law allows; it provides for senior and disabled citizens; low income discounts; it requires that cable be available to everyone in the City except under certain extraordinary circumstances; it provides parental control devices; it provides the City the ability to periodically re-evaluate TCI ' s system and performance; it will provide us with one government access channel fully dedicated to the City of Kent immediately; it will include camera wiring and production facilities for the City's chambers; it will provide an internal network system for the Fire Department and within 48 months or upon TCI 's construction of a fibre optic network in the City of Kent, whichever occurs first, we will have unlimited channel capacity; the internal network system will become a two-way system for fire and will be available for police and for the Kent School system. Brubaker stated that the franchise term is 15 years. Brubaker requested Committee's approval to go forward with this item to Council on April 20th for a first reading and public 2 Kent City Council Meeting n/ Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 196th/200th STREET INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 2 . Y ST . the Public Wor Committee uthorization for the Mayor to sign an Interagency Agreement with King County on the 196th/200th Street Corridor project. Each year an updated City/County agreement is required. This year ' s agreement authorizes the City to spend the County' s allocated $2 , 080, 000 for this project. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes Agreement and memorandum from Public Works Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3I c DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 2, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM D \l' RE: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH 196TH/200TH STREET CORRIDOR Each year upon King County budgeting their share of the anticipated 193 expenses associated with the above referenced corridor project, an updated County/City Agreement is required which essentially authorizes the City to spend same. The County' s 193 budget allocated $2 , 080, 000 for this project. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interagency Agreement for this project. APRIL 11 1993 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE uu ttt��ruuu SOUTH 196TH/200TH STREET PROJECT This agreement is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter called the "City" and KING COUNTY, a governmental subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter called the "County" , for the purpose of performing design and acquiring right- of-way for the South 196th/200th Street Corridor Arterial from the intersection of Orillia Road and South 200th Street to West Valley Highway and constructing improvements at the intersection of Orillia Road and South 200th Street, hereinafter called the "project. " WHEREAS, the County and the City agree that a South 196th/200th Street Corridor Arterial would provide a critical link in the regional transportation system for the Soos Creek and Green River Valley areas; and WHEREAS, the need for this project has been recognized in the County Transportation Plan, the Transportation Needs Report, the Green River Transportation Action Plan, and the Soos Creek Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the new proposed corridor between State Routes 181 and Orillia Road will serve residents of both the City and County; and WHEREAS, the City has applied for and received Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding for the South 196th/200th Engineering Design and Right-of-Way Acquisition from Orillia Road to State Route 181; and WHEREAS, the City will be completing roadway design using City personnel and also using private consulting firms to complete the project design; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of all parties to establish a lead agency to coordinate this project to provide for the design and construction of the project; and WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into an agreement in September of 1992 for the purpose of preparing preliminary engineering, estimates and environmental documents for the project; NOW THEREFORE, the said parties hereby enter into an agreement as follows: 1 I. SCOPE OF WORK 1. 1 The scope of work is to prepare engineering design plans and acquire right-of-way for the project. The product will be engineering drawings for intersection improvements, a new bridge crossing over the Green River and roadway improvements between the intersection of Orillia Road and 200th Street and the intersection of West Valley Highway and South 196th Street. The scope of work includes construction of improvements on Orillia Road northerly and southerly of the intersection at 200th Street. The next phase of the project which includes construction of, roadway and bridge improvements, together with construction inspection and management, will be incorporated in a subsequent County/City agreement or by amendment to this agreement after completion of the pre- annexation agreement as provided for in the King County Council budget proviso. II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2 . 1 Lead Agency - The City shall be the lead agency for the project and shall be the lead agency with regard to SEPA, permitting and other matters pertinent to accomplishment of the Scope of Work. 2 . 2 Engineering Consultants - The City shall be responsible for the advertisement for and selection of engineering and other design consultants_ necessary for the completion of the engineering design, including but not limited to structural engineers, environmental consultants, traffic consultants, and geotechnical consultants to complete the environmental documents, plans and specifications for the project. The City shall utilize minority business enterprise goals for consultants established by the County for this project and shall follow processes established by King County for this purpose. 2 . 3 Public Involvement - The City shall be responsible for coordinating the public information and involvement process and shall meet with the County to develop the Public Involvement Plan. The County shall be given the opportunity to attend and participate in any public meetings. 2 2 . 4 Contact Persons - The parties to this agreement shall appoint a contact person or persons to act as a liaison for the project. These contact persons will meet on an "as needed" basis to provide guidance for the project and serve as a coordination body between the two agencies. 2 . 5 Acceptance - Final acceptance of the project shall be by the City after review and approval by the County. 2 . 6 Schedule - The schedule for the project shall be mutually agreed upon by the City and County. Both the City and County understand that "time is of the essence and shall proceed without delay to avoid any potential for loss of Transportation Improvement Board funds. 2 . 7 Right-of-Way Acquisition - The City shall acquire additional right-of-way needed for the project, however, parcels in the County that require condemnation shall be turned over to the County for actual condemnation. 2 . 8 Authority to Construct - The County hereby authorizes the City to enter its jurisdiction without further permit or bond for the purpose intended by this agreement. III . COST REIMBURSEMENT AND FUNDING 3 . 1 Reimbursement of Cost - The County agrees to reimburse the City for the costs not paid by the Transportation Improvement Board for engineering, review, permit fees, right-of-way, and construction for that portion of the project which lies within King County: The County portion extends from the centerline of the Green River which is the Kent Corporate City Limits westerly to Orillia Road. The City shall provide the County a construction cost estimate at the completion of the engineering phase. The cost of the bridge spanning the Green River will be split 50% to each agency. The City shall bill the County and the County shall reimburse the City on a monthly basis for actual expenses incurred. The County's share of the project shall not exceed $2 , 080, 000 in 1993 . Costs in excess of this amount shall require a subsequent County/City agreement or amendment to this agreement. Invoices shall include the same detail as provided to the TIB. 3 IV. PROGRESS REPORTS AND CHANGE OF DESIGN 4 . 1 The City will at all times keep the County advised as to the progress of said project, and shall not order or approve any changes in the approved project design which substantially change the nature of said project without first consulting the County. V. NON-DISCRIMINATION This Section V shall only apply to those persons and entities hired, retained or otherwise employed by the City as a direct result of the implementation of this agreement. 5. 1 General A. The word "City" as it appears in this section is defined to be the City of Kent or any of its contractors or subcontractors assigned to this project. B. During the performance of this contract, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under authority of this agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this agreement. The City's hiring practices pertaining to engineering and other design consultants under this agreement shall comply fully with King County Code, Chapter 12 . 16, and all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, executive orders and regulations which prohibit such discrimination. These laws include, but are not limited to RCW 49. 60, Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 , Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 , Executive Order 11246 issued by the President of the United States and Executive Order 2001-R issued by the County Executive. C. In the event of noncompliance by the City with any of the non-discrimination provisions of this agreement, the County shall have the right, at their option, to cancel the contract, in whole or in part. 4 If the contract is canceled after partial performance, the county's obligation will be limited to the fair market value or the contract price, whichever is lower, for goods and services which were received and approved prior to cancellation. 5. 2 Employment A. The Parties shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment due to race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, marital status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in any employment practice including, but not limited to, hiring and firing, layoffs, upgrading, promotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, training or any other term, condition or practice of employment. B. The Parties shall give notice of its nondiscrimination policy and obligation in all solicitations or advertisements for engineering and other design consultants. C. The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations - regarding nondiscrimination in employment. 5. 3 Program and Services A. The Parties, or any subcontracting authority under this agreement agrees not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in the access to, or in the provision and administration of, any program or activity under this contract. "Discrimination" includes: a) denial of services or benefits b) segregated, separate, or different treatment c) utilization of administrative criteria or methods that have the effect of discriminatory treatment. This obligation includes making programs and services available and accessible to disabled persons. Pertinent sections of King County Code, Chapter 12 , 16, the County' s Affirmative Action Plan, the County's 504 Accessibility Plan and the Americans Disability Act shall be followed. 5 5.4 Minority/Women' s Business The City shall fully comply with the requirements of King County Code, Chapter 4 . 18 . Failure to do so shall be a material breach of contract. A. During the term of this contact the City shall: a) Comply, as to tasks and proportionate dollar amounts throughout the term of this contract, with any plans made in its proposal for the use of minority and/or women business enterprises (M/WBs) . b) Adhere to the County's substitution policy when a M/WB for any reason becomes disassociated with the contract. B. King County in general, and the County' s M/WB program in particular, are damaged when a contract or a portion of a contract to be performed by a M/WB is not actually performed by a M/WB in compliance with King County Code, Chapter 4. 18 . Because the actual amount of such damage is not reasonably calculable, the parties agree and stipulate that liquidated damages of 100% of the value of the utilization lost due to the violation, not to exceed 10% of the total dollar value of the contract, shall be the amount required to compensate the local jurisdictions and the County for resulting delays in carrying out the purpose of the program, the costs of meeting utilization goals through additional contracts, the administrative costs of investigation and enforcement and other damages and costs caused by the violation. VI. SEVERABILITY 6 . 1 If any covenant or provision in this agreement shall be adjudged void, such adjudication shall not affect the validity, obligation, or performance of any other covenant or provision which in itself is valid, if such remainder would then continue to conform with the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this agreement. VII. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 7 . 1 Each party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party, and its officers, agents and employees, for all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages or costs of any kind whatsoever) to the extent such a claim arises or is caused by the indemnifying party's own negligence or that of its officers, agents or employees in performance of this agreement. VIII. OTHER PROVISIONS 8 . 1 The City shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the employees of the City or any of its contractors, subcontractors and the employees shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees or agents of the County. 8 .2 No liability shall attach to the City or the County by reason of entering into this agreement except as expressly provided herein. 8 . 3 This agreement shall be effective upon execution and shall terminate when the obligations hereunder have been completed. This agreement can be terminated upon approval of both jurisdictions. All costs incurred up to the date of termination shall be payable. 8 .4 This agreement contains the entire written agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior discussions. This agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by both parties. IN CONSIDERATION of mutual benefit accruing herein, the parties hereto agree that the work as set forth herein will be performed by the City under terms of this agreement. 7 IN WITNESS THEREOF the parties hereto have executed the agreement on the day and year last written below. KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT By By Title: King County Executive Title: Mayor Date ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM King County Attorney City of Kent Attorney hearing, with Council adoption on May 4th. Committee unanimously recommended Council approval for the public hearing and first reading of the Cable T.V. Franchise for April 20th. Brubaker requested an Executive Session immediately following the meeting. Parking Policy Review Wickstrom stated that this agreement is associated with the City' s parking requirements in relationship to the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction law. Under the agreement, the City will receive $20, 000 (grant) for this effort. Although the Mayor has already signed this, as a procedural matter we need Council authorization for same establishing the budget. Committee unanimously recommended approval. 196th/200th St Corridor Interagency Agreement Wickstrom stated that this is a draft agreement between the City and County for the 196th/200th street project. The County is paying their share and every year the County budgets for the improvement and every year they are required to enter into a new agreement to do so. Wickstrom stated that this gives us $2, 080, 000 to spend for the project. Wickstrom said that the reason this agreement is in draft form, is that dollar figure may increase. Committee unanimously recommended Council authorization for the Mayor to sign this agreement. Van Doren Way Vacation (64th Ave to S. 228th St) Wickstrom stated there is a proposed development within the plat of Van Doren's Landing which may need to vacate Van Doren Way. This is a major potential development that the builder would need to occupy in July and in order to do so we want to give the developer tentative approval now, so that between now and April 20th, if the developer comes in with his formal vacation request, we can then process it at the April 20th Council meeting. Committee unanimously recommended approval. Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds Wickstrom explained there was only enough time to check the three low bids prior to putting the Committee's packets together. However, after checking the remaining bids the original fourth bidder, Briggs Construction, ended up being the low bidder with a -. 3 d� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT FUNDS - RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As Qmmended bv the Parks Committee, option of Resolution No. / S3 authorizing the City to make application for grant funds through this program, for the acquisition of land and/or open space, as needed for: A) Kent Lagoons Wetlands/Wildlife Enhancement project, B) the Upper Mill Creek Canyon Park, C) the East Hill Community Park and, D) the Riverview Park. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, excerpt from Parks Committee Minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Parks Committee (2-0 vote) with Christi Houser' s approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J -4- KING COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT PROGRAM. Because of low interest rates and available and disappearing property, Helen Wickstrom reported that King County has passed an ordinance making available $60,000,000 for open space grants for this year only, which is 50% of the future Conservation Futures Tax funds that will be collected over the next 25 years. The other half will be available on an annual basis. The -$60,000,000 will be divided into four categories of $15,000,000 each. The City of Kent is eligible for two categories, regional and local , but a compelling need must be shown that funds are needed now. She stated that this is the only open space grant funding available at this time and reviewed grant criteria, point rating system and calendar dates. Regional projects must benefit residents throughout King County and must have open space features important to King County. Properties must be obtained because of threatened development or limited availability of matching funds. Matching funds are not a requirement but give the project a better chance of being funded. In arder to apply, the property must be identified in an adopted park, open space or comprehensive plan in conformance with the state Growth Management Act, or have an accompanying City Council motion or resolution stating that the property is a high priority acquisition and that it will be included in the appropriate Growth Management Act plans when adopted . She introduced Bill Wolinski , Public Works Department, who gave a presentation on a proposed regional application for a Sewer Lagoon Wetlands/Wildlife Enhancement project in the amount of $1 ,000,000 for conversion of the abandoned sewage lagoon into a regional flood control and storm water management wetlands and wildlife habitat area. The Public Works Department is initiating design and negotiating for purchase of the additional 210 acres of land west of the lagoon. The land is needed in order to construct the facility and to handle the lagoon dredge material . A specialty firm has been hired to create a dredging and disposal plan. The most favorable economic option would be to use the dredge material to enhance the habitat site for wetlands/wildlife. This project has been selected on the Metro short list for $1 ,000,000 of mitigation funds for the West Point Sewage Treatment Plant. Wickstrom added that this project would tie in with Parks and Recreation by being next to Green River Corridor Trail and Van Doreii's Landing Park, which would allow for bonus points. For McCarthy; Wolinski responded that the property is comprised of 5,000 feet of river frontage and the land is undeveloped. Once completed, Wolinski concluded that this project would be of national significance because it integrates the issues of flood control , storm water treatment, wetlands management and wildlife habitat and would be an amenity to the City for passive recreation and public education and awareness. Wolinski clarified for McCarthy that other funding sources are available such as selling Drainage Revenue Bonds and reported that the entire project cost for acquisition and handling dredge material was estimated at $14,000,000, but land acquisition may be less costly due to the present valuation of wetlands. With Metro and possible Conservation Futures funds, the total cost would be defrayed by $2,000,000. For Bennett, Wolinski explained that this project addressed valley flooding. -5- Johnson moved for approval of the King County. Conservation Futures Grant application for a Sewer Lagoon Wetlands/Wildlife Enhancement project in the amount of $1 000 000 and approval of a resolution regarding the open space acquisition Bennett seconded The motion passed unanimously (2-0) and the item will be placed on the April 20 Consent Calendar in order to meet the regional application deadline Tom Brubaker will provide a resolution. Wickstrom described the proposed local projects. The first is acquisition in the amount of $665,000 for two parcels in Mill Creek Canyon right off 104th. There are only two parcels left which would complete the park and also tie into the Public Works storm retention basin across 104th. Public Works will apply $100,000 toward matching funds which would generate some points (a total match would generate full points) . The second project is acquisition of a 13 112 acre wooded site off of 248th on East Hill . It is one parcel off of Benson and has five acres separating it from the existing East Hill Park site. If it could eventually be connected to East Hill Park, a 20 acre community park would be created. Wickstrom added that this is a very valuable piece of property, but may not score high. Another project possibility is Riverview Park which is on the regional trail system and on the Green River. Wickstrom requested input for other project ideas. Because local projects have a later application deadline and the scoring criteria was just received, she will evaluate the proposed local projects and return to the Parks Committee with a final report. PARK RENTAL HOUSES. As an informational item, McCarthy reported that Jack Ball recently met with the Executive Committee regarding the future of the rental houses . McCarthy reported other uses under discussion include demolition of the Golf Course house to provide Mini Putt expansion (with the possibility of the new Golf Director providing some funds) ; future conversion of the Neely house into a museum run by the Kent Historical Society; converting the corrections house and another house into homeless shelters for men or families; and making the West Hill house an interpretive center. If houses are sold that have been purchased with grant funds, the money would have to go back into those projects. McCarthy compared maintenance time and expense and the present need-'for substantial repairs versus the revenue generated. He requested input and authorization to pursue options and return with an update. Bennett agreed with pursuing options and returning to the Parks Committee with a update• he questioned whether the City should be in the real estate business. INTRODUCTION OF GRADY KIZZIAR. PARKS DEPARTMENT INTERN. Cheryl Fraser introduced Grady Kizziar, a Western Washington University recreation student, who is donating internship hours through May assisting the Resource Center and Parks Administration. He will also serve as the summer Day Camp Director. put ninulunnntSlnln tntt}) nt�tnllnul utnuulu np.�nu ntnwnu qn wununn nnl utnuunu[ u�17 1}'r •IUl CI IN. JII A111�I LM nr-r i Y _ • ®�f�] IIe1M]I �II�—may MILL CREEK c KENT (LAGOONS �I/6£ VA s nErt'ON [ �Sn S< � arrx l •777���`111 .� 9 .. Zw ,x•.0,1 _ a 6.0 ' s9Jn91 I� )_uxu �I �J --"1••�- sun IT r] - e wlrtna4o I ��is�(JI 1][[ , DEJ 1— i rj q ��s sue- � I� � ,. , ,e �•� I sNnn I` )r 1( x Iece,1 - ,d e IT 3St/h 1 1 = I 1 wCN/ GREEN RIVER •]rN I� cFwe/Fer l wnF ` IN]( fFNY/C.f I i )]e YO te]N)1 N(]I, :11II u11Il1I1t1i 1171 its IIi11711717I1 t11u11111i11[1Iy IIIIII/I [ll tllli�1111111111t1 II IIIu11111 [[1II�I IIu1l tllulltttll�tfl111t KENT LAGOONSr SITE MAP RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing applications to receive funding for City projects from the King County Regional Conservation Futures Acquisition Program. WHEREAS , King County has adopted Ordinance 10750 , which establishes a Regional Conservation Futures Acquisition Program to acquire land to provide a system of public open spaces necessary for the health, welfare, benefit and safety of the residents of King County; and WHEREAS , of the Sixty Million dollars ($60 , 000 , 000 . 00) available in this fund, fifteen million dollars ($15 , 000, 000 . 00) has been allocated for projects of extraordinary regional significance and fifteen million dollars ($15, 000, 000 . 00) has been allocated for projects of extraordinary local significance; and WHEREAS , the following described property is a high priority acquisition of the City of Kent, and it either is or shall be included in the City of Kent Comprehensive and Open Space Plans, as well as any applicable Growth Management Act plans, when adopted: Kent Lagoons-- Combined Storm Water Detention/Enhanced Wetlands Facility comprised of at least sixty and possibly as much as approximately 700 acres within the City of Kent, lying East of the Green River. WHEREAS, the Kent Lagoons project is a City project that best meets the criteria for allocating funds for regional and/or local 1 projects of extraordinary significance as established in attachments A and B of King County ordinance No. 10750 ; and WHEREAS, the deadline for submitting applications for funding consideration for projects of extraordinary regional significance is April 21, 1993 ; NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1 . Appropriate City staff are authorized to complete application based on the appropriate County criteria for project funding under the County ' s Regional Conservation Futures Acquisition Program for the following project: Kent Lagoons-- Combined Storm Water Detention/Enhanced Wetlands Facility comprised of at least sixty and potentially as much as approximately 700 acres within the City of Kent lying East of the Green River. Section 2 . The Mayor of the City of Kent is hereby authorized to apply for grant funds from the King County Regional Conservation Futures Acquisition Program for the City Local and Regional Projects. Section 3 . In conformance with the requirements of King County Ordinance No. 10750, Section 2 (E) , the City represents that it shall support any accepted project with a matching contribution no less than the amount of Conservation Futures funds awarded to the project, which contribution may consist of cash, land trades with a valuation verified by an appraisal by a MAI certified appraiser, or credits for other qualifying open space acquired on or after January 1, 1989 . Section 4 . The City also represents that it shall comply with all other obligations required in County Ordinance No. 10750. 2 Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City Of Kent, Washington, this day of , 1992 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, on the day of 1992 • (SEAL) CITY CLERK 3 y �' Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20 1993 n Category Consent Calendar �(y 1. SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF EAST HILL PARK AND WEST FENWICK PARK ARTWORK SELECTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of East Hill Park and West Fenwick Park artwork by artist Barbara Grygutis. This item was passed at the Parks Committee meeting on April 6th. 3 . EXHIBITS: Artist proposal 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee (2-0 vote) Houser not present but approved placement on the Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO > YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K From F= _ o. 1' _- _ -6Nh1 P01 Grygutis Page 2, KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT ARTS COMMISSION Wost Fenwick Park c�-4 0r` Ea+s-r-147Yl /r r Date 3�18�g3 Proposal 51te. .__ , -- Artist Barbara Grygutis Phone(6021882-5G72 Address 273 North Main, Tucson, AZ Zip 85701 Social Security # 152-38-9030_ 1. Proposal Summary: Plaasa be very specific Title of Work. _ WATER Materials Handmade stoneware t I on dry vit with cast conc'rotc core. Fabrication Method -._.._. Dimension& x x Weight Estimated Projcct Duration mahths 2. Description of Proposed Artwork: WATER is a sculpture composed of five letter : W,A,T,E,R. The letters are six feet high and one foot wide and constructed of blue handmade ceramic tile on dryvit armature. The greenish blue to cobalt blue color of the tile makes. reference to the color ,of shallow to deep water. The letters will be attached with cast concrete and steel reinforcing to a foundation below the ground surface. 3. Special Considerations: Where will work be executed/fabricated? In my studio. What site preparation will be necessary? Concrete pas to support each letter Do you plan to provide special lighting? No. Are there special considerations related to: Maintenance No - clean with windex from time to time. Weathering NO. Public contact (touchingy, climbing) o pro em. Vandalism No roblcm. What do you contemplate as a base? Poured concrete below surface. How will the work be attached to the base or how will the artwork be mounted? Steel reinforced - ermanent attachment. Size 'r code Depth TO code Are there any special structural/technical considerations? No . Nave you visited the site? NO . Is this work part of an edition? Part-ot a series When could you commence work on this project? Spring 1992' What it tho axnprtarl r-nmolei. inn dAte? July 1M From PHONE ho. � �.� . 1'= ;553 3:57Ph F04 Grygutis Page 3. ESTIMATED BUDGET MatRrials (plaase list) $ 1 ,000.00 Clay, gas Artist's labor S..Onn.nn Wages for assistants 1 ,000.00 Fabrication Expense ---- -- Studio Overhead ---- Transportation to site 11000.00 Site preparation 1 ,000.00 Installation 1 ,000.00 special lighting (if applicable) Insurance (if applicable) _ 350,00 Sign (required) 500.00 Other Artist travel : -$1.,000 1,000.00 State Sales Tax (8.2%) 1 ,150.00 Total Budget 11,000.0 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION Month Work Stage May - June Fabrication in studio July Installation Is it possible to visit your studio during production of the piece? Yes If so, please indicate (*) the best times during roduction for a visit . Any ime I hereby certify that, if accepted, this artwork will meet or exceed the standards represented by this proposal , and the level of professionalism and craftsmanship demonstrated in my current body of work. M� Artis s Signature na fiP. ;/// PHONE No. Mar. Ji 1993 3:22FT1 P02 From Page 1 KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF KENT ARTS, COMMISSION West Fenwick Park and/or Fast Rill Park Date 3/31/93 Proposal Site, Artist Rarhara Grygutis Phone (602)_-882-5572 Address 273 N. Main, Tucson, Arizona Zip 85701 Social Security ._.__ 152-38-5030 --- - 1 . Proposal Summary: Please be very specific Title of Work Earth Materials Hi a a c e on concrete _ _ precast M e Farcation eth�d concrete an ceramic le Willbe applied to one face. _ ., Dimensions w� a ong, no ieig Weight. N Estimated Project Duration - rrrnn s 2. Description of Proposed Artwork: "Earth is a flat sculpture embedded in the earth and flush with grass . The letters E,A,RjjH, will be six feet by approximately Aft. each and will be made of brown ceramic tile. The letters will be installed on a hillside for better visibility. 3. Special Considerations: Where will work be executed/fabricated? The letters will be constructed 'in my str What site preparation will be necessary? zn, are reso ing Do you plan to provide special lighting? Are there special considerations related to : Maintenance no mashine�S11 top of letters Weathering no Public contact (touching, climbing) no Vandalism no What do you contemplate as a base? ---- How will Lhe work be attached to the base or how will the artwork be mounted? uY.5 - o Site Depth '' Are there any special structural/technical considerations? Have you visited the site? 41 S -- � Is this work part of an edition? t'f�i�T of N `'E� tE ' -- - 1.iL-- __..iA ...... rnmmonrp wnrk nn t.hi5 nro.iect? LM_AL.f,r.t,y���i From : FHi iNt No. ESTIMATED OUDGLi Grygutis . Page 2 Materials (please list) $ 1 +�QL00 Clay, gas Artist's lahnr Wages for assistants 11000.00 Fabrication Fxpense Studio Overhead 1 ,000.00 Transportation to sito 1 ,000.00 Site preparation 1 ,000.00 Installation 1 ,000.00 Special lighting (if applicable) Insurance (if applicahlc) 350,00 Sign (required) 500.00 Other Artist travel : $1,000 1 ,000.00 T State Sales Tax (8.2%) 1 ,150.00 Total Budget 1W 4 o0D.00 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLCTION Month Work Stage May June Fabrication in studio Jul Ins ta I I a tion Is it possible to visit your studio during production of the piece? Yes If so, please indicate (*) the best times during roduction for a visit . Any�ime I hereby certify that, if accepted, this artwork will 'meet or exceed the standards represented by this proposal , and the level of professionalism and craftsmanship demonstrated in my current body of work. Arti s�r s Siynaturu i` ~, Oat'e b� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION REMODEL (AMENDMENT TO BILL OF SALE) 2 . SU As recommended b the Public Work tee uthorization o e ete acceptance of t at portion of the bi 1 of sale denoting 2 , 620 lineal feet of storm sewer. The location of this storm line lies within King County jurisdiction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_—><- _ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MARCH 31 , 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO7EE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: KENT SCHOOL ADMIN REMODEL (AMENDMENT TO BILL OF SALE) The complete Bill of Sale for this project was accepted by Council on March 16th. This action needs to be amended to delete 2 , 620 lineal feet of storm sewers . The storm sewers on this project are in King County. As such, this portion of the Bill of Sale needs to be excluded. 7 IY OF N MAR 3 © 1993 Kent, Washington ENGINEERING DEPT March 16, 1993 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Human Resources Director Olson, Information Services Director Spang, and Acting Finance Director Miller. Approximately 45 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Chris Ring Day. Mayor Kelleher read a proclama- COMMUNICATION tion declaring March 17 , 1993 as Chris King Day in the City of Kent. He noted that Chris King has been chosen as the winner of "A Salute to Citizen- ship" for the State of Washington by the Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and, because of her out- standing service to the City of Kent, has been selected for this honor. He urged all citizens of Kent to recognize Chris King' s contributions to the community and then presented her with the proclamation. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR M be approved. White seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of the Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 2, 1993 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) SANITATION Kent School Administration Remodel. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Kent School District #415 for continuous opera- tion and maintenance of 2,,493 lineal feet of water main extension, 1, 355 lineal feet of sanitary sewer extension and 2, 620 lineal feet of storm sewers, in the vicinity of 12033 SE 256th Street and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) CONTROL LID 333 - Sianalization at 72nd/180th Street. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Breaker Construction for a traffic signal installation at the intersection of 72nd Avenue S. & S. 180th Street. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3&1 amending Chapter 9 . 12 of the Kent City Code relative to the possession of marijuana and adding a definition thereto. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety (3-0 vote) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M I I' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 9 . 12 relating to the Possession of Marijuana and adding a definition thereto. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Kent City Code (KCC) Section 9 . 12 . 22 entitled "Possession of Marijuana" is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9 . 12 . 22 Possession of Marijuana. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess marijuana ( ( (eanibissativa) ) ) • Anyone who possesses marijuana in an amount under forty (40) grams is guilty of a misdemeanor. Marijuana means all parts of the plant of the genus Cannabis L. whether growing or not ; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of theplant; and every compound, manufacture salt derivative mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, : fiber Produced from the stalks oil or cake made from the seeds , of the Plant, any other compound , manufacture salt derivative mixture or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin : extracted therefrom) , fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. i' I� I i �i 'i Section 2 . If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1993 . APPROVED day of 1993 . PUBLISHED day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK POSSMJ.ORD Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX - GOLF ADVISORY BOARD/CITY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Golf Advisory Board was formed in June, 1992 to advise Administration and make a recommendation to the Parks Committee on issues related to the Riverbend Golf Complex. Following extensive review and study of finance and operational issues by the Advisory Board, the Council, at its January 19, 1993 meeting, authorized the issuance of an RFP to seek proposals for the provision of golf services at the Riverbend Golf Complex. The services sought to be provided include, among other things, starters for the 18 hole and par 3 courses, operation of the driving range and mini-putt, sales of golf merchandise, golf lessons, power cart rentals, the provi- sion of course marshals and operation of the cafe (snack bar) . In soliciting proposals for these services, the City was interested in obtaining professional golf management as well as financial savings to the City. In response to the RFP, the City received ten proposals that met the criteria set forth in the RFP. The selection process involved two phases: 1) quali- fication and proposal evaluation; 2) personal interviews. Following a review of the proposals, the Golf Advisory Board recommended to the Parks Committee, at its April 6 meeting, that the City negotiate a contract with SSMD Enterprises, Inc. , and in the event a contract could not successfully be negoti- ated with SSMD, to negotiate a contract with Golf Northwest, Inc. subject to Golf Northwest, Inc. ' s selection of a golf director acceptable to the City. This recommendation was adopted by the Parks Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letters of recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee (2-0 Houser not present) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, CouncilmemberAI<MA4,11�A seconds to direct administration to negotiate a contract with SSMD, Enterprises, Inc. and in the event a contract cannot be successfully negotiated, to negotiate a contract with Golf Northwest, Inc. subject to Golf Northwest, Inc. selecting a Golf Director acceptable to the City; and to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement in a form similar to the one set forth in the RFP following successful negotiation of an agreement. DISCUSSION: ACTION' N �� Council Agenda Item No. 4A OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATION DATE: April 16, 1993 TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher City Council \\ FROM: Tony McCarthy, i f Administrative Officer RE: SELECTION OF GOLF CONTRACTOR The April 20 meeting is a culmination of 10 months of work by the Golf Advisory Board in the development of a proposal : 1. To provide professional golf management at the Riverbend Golf Complex; and 2 . To save the City substantial dollars for debt retirement and golf capital improvements. The Golf Advisory Board Selection Committee has, through an extensive process, selected a firm with well established professional golf management experience. The Golf Advisory Board Selection Committee' s analysis is included in the packet. The selection Committee made up of members of the golf community, the business community and City staff was unanimous in their selection of SSMD, Inc. Letter of recommendation for their golf director are included in the packet. Other members of their team provided financial backing and will also work at the facility. The Finance Department staff has run financial credit checks on the company and they appear financially able to finance the operation. Though the interruption of SSMD's financial proposal to the City was not initially the best proposal, meetings have been held to discuss negotiation of a contract. Meetings have clarified SSMD' s understanding of the City' s requirements and the City will be negotiating for a financial package as follows: Annual savings from the contractor for 1/94 - 12/94 125, 000 City savings by having contractor 80, 000 1993 budgeted City cash flow 95, 000 Total annual cash flow to City 300, 000 City had a 1992 cash flow of $100 , 821 First year buy out of City inventory & equipment 150, 000 With professional golf management and a financial sound proposal to the City, the City has planned for a transition process. Letters have been sent to all golf complex employees telling them the options pending selection of a contractor. A copy of the letters are included in the packet. In addition, I have met with all the employees. The employees will all be given interviews with SSMD, some employees will have the option of filling vacant City positions in other departments. If neither option works out, the City will provide a severance package for full and regular part-time employees and out-placement counseling for all employees. With this proposal, the City Administration and the Park Committee recommend acceptance of SSMD pending completion of successful negotiation of the contract. golfadv.mem GOLF SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sue Goddard, President Women's Golf Club at Riverbend Gary Johnson, Golfer with Financial Analysis Expertise Dan Farmer, Golfer Steve Dowell, Local Businessman Ruth O'Brien, Golfer with Golf Business Expertise Harold Perantie, Golf Maintenance Background Jim Bennett, City Council Alana McIalwain - non-voting Patrice Thorell, Staff Don Olson, Staff Tony McCarthy, Staff PHASE I Proposer: Rated By: FINANCLWpROPOSAL (150 points possible) Financial: 1. Pro-fortna financial value to the city of offer: Up to a maximum of: a. financial model b. line-of-credit C. overall proposal 62 pts. 2. Buy-out provisions a. merchandise inventory b. power carts - lease payments, purchase C. restaurant equipment& golf equipment inventory 31 pts. Proposal: A. Quality and detail contained in proposal. 22 pts. B. Transition component: how will proposer make transition from City operated to Director operated. 19 pts. C. Director's proposal for staffing the complex: number of staff, qualifications of staff, and ongoing training. 16 pts. QUALIFICATIONS (150 points possible) A- Be c LAssRv.D As AN Acne P.G.A. ntEmBE•Jt classification 19 per' B. NUMBER OF YEARS IN COIF-RI7ATED BUSINESS. NUMBER OE WARS IN GOLF CONdiSSIONS, IF ANY. -- size of golf course managed, private or public course proven experience as a successful operator of large golf course w/verifiable record of success in a management capacity. - education & experience with golf related budgets. - finances & budget management, personnel management - ability to maximize the golfer service potential/revenue potential - retail experience 44 pts. C. NUMBER OF yFARS of.10a-RELATED ExpERIENCE DIRrzMY DffAIJNC Wm l PUIIIJC- public relations background direct contact with public - customer 29 pts. D. PROVDE INFORMATION ON AFERMATNB ACTION IN EMPLOYMENT. number of employees directly supervised/how long experience with affirmative action plans; development, administration, EEO experience 19 pts. E. NUMBER OF yFARS, IF ANY, IN RE3rAURANT OR FOOD SIRVRx INDUSTRY. food & beverage operations experience 13 pts. F. FINANc3AL ANALYSIS. reduces expenditures at Riverbend Golf Complex increases revenue opportunities for City of Kent financial overview 26 pts. Total Points Received 0 " O � w o rrD � p0� � °' o � o o C °, W M 0 G N y b 5. H w, p N H w �' � '7• v � ° ° o w 8 'd n paao OQ N � [7. ° A* o p •, rp (D w o G. C h 10 0b " n S. r9 w K a � w � � O i t' N 0' rr 'C7 `L w `c n ° p N O c y d w ro+ a v' N p °Q rD R p N O r(Di. rD n C7 ° a �' n 'b �. (ND 'F7 .N-r 4 O' Im ° C O C �• w by ro A �. w ° °' S� p C7 Q rD rD C C O y N rD N H0 rD OQ �c7 ° p ro �. R. N w b n N•H M N M r+• rw'f � y k 0 00 O y , N ro °� w w a [� �• rD 7r w .� rn O N V V 0 ti DQ 0 0 rb Alrwryy fo IL-A - ;o Oo J ON ,A 0 It odFAO z ��c rya oo .. mo zz rr z o 00 000 OOo � � N J A a _ N J ON N O� J N 77D t A W N N O J O O N W Vs + A w N r N -+ -' r N -I N Oo W O -�l O W �D - -�1 N p O 4�- � W •? Oo O\ Oo � ' W cn cn •? O O � O O O � � (,J W r+ A N M 000 � O� � W � N O� �O J O Oo W co �p N N N N O� J � J W 0 W 000 O a\ w O W N N O N N - .4. 00 N cn N- w ut CS cn Oo N W J N O� N Oo C!i cn 7� 00 00 z o � z � z a NcNii O 00 N 77) 00 VI M F-n F� W N _... N 00 0 0 0 W ' V 0 W W W N y� 0 0 W 00 W N � cWn O � N O 00 N W a RECEJ �� E - - APR 1 6-1993 - QFFICE OF l�jE VJAYOR NATIONAF. II, M `,IS 1991 Defending Rosc ns 1991, 1992 April 13 , 1993 Mr. Dan Kelleher, Mayor City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Dan: �793 R)'e Bee•.� I would like to recommend golf pro Keith Sanden and his Professional Management Group to you as an organization to direct your city golf services . I have known Keith for these past fifteen years and have always been impressed with his ability not only to manage a golf course but to do it efficiently and effectively. I have watched Keith run everything from one day golf outings and dinners to four day tournaments . He not only has expertise in running a total golf operation but is up to date on course management. One of Keith' s major talents is to be able to relate and work with all of the various groups of people that you see in connection with golf from caddies, greens keepers to players he is equally comfortable. I strongly recommend Keith Sanden. ie93�a�ra Ba::� Sincerely, DON JAMES 9S1RoseBuc,i HEAD COACH Husky Football 1931 Rote eo:•a - DJ:nbm 1979 son Boat I978 rose Baoi UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS Dun limes. He.u3 Co.IU1 1200) 513-2242 DICK 13,111d, Recruiting COordITIMOf (206) 5-73-2292 D V 'rUUby" Gf,lVeS Uwidmr). GC 20. SCmtle. W.rshinytoo 98195 FAX 12061 543-5000 GARY WAGNER REAL ESTATE -��,�� HOMES • SUBDIVISIONS ACREAGE + FARMS APPRAISALS t 24U5 104th Ave. S.E. KFNT, WASHINGTON 98031 8$4-3aS0 FAX: 854-4040 RECEIVED APR 1 51993 April 2 , 1993 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Letter of Recommendation : Keith Sanden I have known Keith Sanden for more than sixteen years . Keith was head professional at Meridian Valley Country Club in Kent at the time I joined . I have had the opportunity to travel with Keith to golf tournaments and on fishing trips . I have observed him at work at Meridian Valley , as well as on occasion at the Classic Golf Club in Spanaway, Washington. I know Keith to be a man of integrity and good humor . He is well respected by his peers , having held office in the Northwest Section of the PGA and has been named professional of the year . He does an excellent job of training assistant professionals and has placed several of his assistants in head professional positions through- out Washington state . Keith has a wealth of experience and a keel under- standing of golf course operations . He is a long time resident of the Kent area and was instrumental in bringing the successful L. P .G. A. Safeco Classic to Meridian Valley Country Club in Kent . It is my pleasure to wholeheartedly recommend Keith Sanden for the position of Director of Golf , City of Kent Golf Complex. Very Truly Yours, Ck Gary A. Wagner President Meridian Valley Country Club f)The sa C!CLAS C THE SAFEWAY SKINS GAME March 17, 1993 THE CELLULAR ONE PRO-AM Meridian Valley Country Club September l3-19. 1993 Selection Committee R E C E I V E D Honorary Chairman Bruce Maines Kent Complex Tournament Director Kent, WA 98042 MAR 181993 Doug McArthur Advisory Board OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Rosanna Bellotti To Whom It May Concern: Ben Benson Don Billington Bill Bori I am writing in behalf of Keith Sanden, applying for the Ron Coleman Liz Culver position of Director of Golf. Gordon Hamilton Robert H.Johnson As Tournament Director of The SAFECO Classic for the past Dave Kraft JonLudviksen 12 years, I had opportunity to work alongside Keith at Cherie Myers Meridian Valley Country Club in Kent for the first eight Todd Patch years of the event. Tom Phillips Angela Randall Judy Thompson As the head professional at Meridian Valley, Keith was W—neThronson deeply involved in securing the LPGA tour stop in the asham lvitve Writeley state of Washington and in the organization and planning of the tournament once it became a reality. Host Club General Manager Cathy Ekstrom During that time I found Keith encouraging, helpful, reliable, Host Club Superintendent most competent, thoroughly professional, refreshingly genuine, Craig Benson and a source of good ideas and good sense. Host Club Professional DougDoxsie His organizational advice and technical knowledge were important to the quality of the tournament, and the LFGA considers Seattle one of the top events on its tour. Keith deserves much of the credit for that. Since leaving Meridian Valley, I have followed the efforts of Keith in the development of the Classic Country Club in Spanaway. Keith is well-organized, imaginative, totally professional in both business and golf, is highly respected by his peers, and possesses a wealth of experience and knowledge in the golf industry. Several of the brightest young professionals in the Northwest were trained under Keith, including Scott Alexander at Gold Mountain and Steve Dubsky at Lake Spanaway. If I had a golf course of my own, Keith Sanden would be one of the first people I would turn to for expertise and direction. Beat-wishes, Post Office Box 6468 ,93 Kent,Washington 98064 rArthur, Prii in SADou To>)trnament Director P,m,eo;nusn. Phone(206)624-6818 April 10 , 1993 ECEI VE [j. APR 13 1993 Mayor Dan Kelleher OFFICE OF THE MAYOR City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave . So. Kent , WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor , I 've learned that my old friend Keith Sanden Is being considered as operator of the City of Kent's Riverbend Golf Complex . It's my pleasure to be able to pass on to you my endorsement of Keith . I 've know Keith for about twenty years , dating back to when he first moved to our area as head professional at Meridian Valley Country Club and, most recently , in his capacity as director of golf at the Classic Country Club in Spanaway . In that time , I ' ve known Keith to be professional and courteous as a representative of his employer . At the same time , it has been my observation that he is a prudent money manager with a realization of his fiscal responsibilities to his employer . For example , Keith has always extended to me complimentary playing priveleges at his clubs as a recognition of the efforts I have made over the years to promote golf through television . (This has not something I ask for nor take for granted) . At the same time , he has always asked my guests, or playing partners, to pay in accordance with the policies of the club. What that has always said to me is that Keith is a professional manager who understands p .r . on the one hand, but also recognizes his fiscal responsibilities on the other . Lastly , I would add that , business aside , Keith is someone who, after all these years, still loves golf . He' ll talk to you about the pro tour , new courses, your swing (and his) , equipment and Just about anything else to do with this crazy game . He's an ambassador of golf . Keith Sanden has my heartiest endorsement as concessionnaire of the Riverbend Golf Complex . Si cerel , Gary ustice Anchor KIRO TV News (And, rules guru on The Golf Club, Video Magazine) p S. PL 4fc� C xcurc, 7-AW �+�rer Sn� i�i 5 -,�nc,. 11-ar� -7'1-, cvAe tr.�c 7'rfis /9T PQloi2 7-o j,¢K6-.1G -,-qc- ;Vtq�ILy ou,T a/= ?ow•✓ j-u!Z SP12iNG (32t�9 � � S.S.M.D ENTERPRISES, INC. Kent, Washington April 16, 1993 President Judy Woods and Members of Kent City Council 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 Re: Riverbend Golf Complex Proposal and Guarantee Dear Council Members: On behalf of S.S.M.D. Enterprises, Inc., dba S.S.M.D., Inc., I wish to express our appreciation to all of the staff at the City of Kent who have been most gracious and cooperative during the analysis and negotiation of our proposal. I would like to make the following guarantee based upon our work: • I will provide the City of Kent a total of$300,000 from a combination of cost savings and increased net revenues. This guarantee is conditioned upon the attainment of the 1993 City of Kent Proposed Budget figures contained within the original Riverbend Request for Proposal. In addition to the $300,000 derived from the management package that I will be providing, the city will realize an additional $150,000 in cash for the existing city owned assets that I will be purchasing upon the completion of the final contract document. The combination of these two income vehicles will boost the first year savings to the city to some $450,000. Respegifully sub 'tted, ) Keith Sanden, President - Director of Golf THIS WORKSHEET USES T HE CITY OF KEN IS FO' NOTES: - - - SSMD Response --- FEE AND PERCENTAGE R_ EVENUES• IT REFLEC S> i Cit of Kent Golf Proposal C Percent _Diro_ctor Budsel M9mt of Gross Payment 1993 CltfCoKntractor REVEIAJES -- 500_> $71,407 Green Fees $1,428,136 $1,428,136 10.00°0 28 Drivin Range Fees $478,282 $478,282 �_ - - Miscellaneous Revenue 5.0001. $3,360 Mini-putt Fees $67,201 $67,201 90.00010 $98,563 Golf Lessons $109,514 $109,514 95.00°0 $346.300 Sale of Merchandise $364,526 $364,526 85.00'; $242,774 Sale of Food $285,617 $285,617 -. 05.000, $110,2©6 Cart and Club Rentals $129,748 $1 $3,408- _- �� 00"b g2,093 -Is-collaneous ---- - -- -- OPERATINGREVENUES $2,866,428 $2,666,428 DTENISES $937,178 $480,651 $4�6,527 Salaries and Benefits Supplies: ----- Items prchased for resale $310,000 $375,000 --,---- Merchandise g1$119,864 19.8 9_864 Food --- - $214.746 $75,711 $139,035 Oiher ------ Services and Char es: $80,466 $80,466 _--- Cit Allocation Golf Admin Allocation Golf Maint Allocation Other $302,006 $131,037 $170_969 $2,029,260 $767,865 $1,261_395 _---- D(PETfSE EXCLUDING DEPREC - NET INCOME E)(LUDINGDEPREC $837,168 $2,098,563 $1,261,395 -_----- NON OPERATING REVENUES&EXPENSES -- $41,309 Interest Income $41,309 ----- ------ $3,000 $_3,000 Other Non Operating Income $393,313 ($393,313) _.-.. ---- - Interest Expense 88 Rev Bond _ - Interest Expense Cart Lease/Purc $3,401 - � 3'-•���)4 $ -- 405 $349,004 �53, 01) TOTAL NON OPERATING REVENUES _Z-- NETINCOME $484484.763 $1,749,559 51,264,796 ____----- _._----- OTHER FINANCIALSOURCES USES $165,000 $165,000 Princi al 88 Rev Bond $23,113 _ ---- Principal 89 Cart Lease/Purchase $23,113 Transfer for 85 Go Debt $140,000 $140,000 -�_.---- Acquisition of Capital Assests $61,600 $61,600 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES USES $389,713 $366,600 $23,113 INCREASE DECREASE) IN CASH $95,050 $1,382,959 $1,287,9091 50.009; $239,000 $239,000 DIRECTOR PAYMENT FIXED AMOUNT $239,000 $1,162,411 INCREASE DECREAS IN CASH $95,050 $1,143,959 $1,0481M $923,411 $92 .411 $220,548 COST SAVINGS: Salary, benefits and �` n� �GfC• allocated costs - City Golf Director $ 80_.�00 _ PROFIT - CITY OF KENT : $300,548 t MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 1993 TO: �, (--r t R P1 FROM: Patrice Thorell, Acting Riverbend Golf Complex Manager SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX LAYOFF POLICY As you know, the City of Kent has a Request for Proposals process underway regarding the future management of the Riverbend Golf Complex. If a contractor is selected, transition will most likely take place between May 1 and July 1, 1993 . The City of Kent is very concerned about the affect of pending layoffs at Riverbend and therefore is making preparations to lessen the financial impact upon you and your family. Here is an overview of possible future employment options. 1. Riverbend full time and regular part-time employees will be interviewed and may be selected to fill existing vacant City positions. 2 . Riverbend employees may be interviewed by contractor to fill contractor's new positions at Riverbend Golf Complex. 3 . Riverbend employees may be terminated through layoff. Riverbend full time and regular part-time employees affected by layoff notice will receive the following layoff package. 1. Paid compensation for one-month. 2 . Paid medical benefits for one-month. 3 . Out placement assistance. The Human Resources Department has requested that each full time and regular part-time employee fill out a City of Kent application for employment with an attached resume to help expedite possible placement within the City. Your participation with this process is voluntary. Please return completed applications to me to indicate your interest by Friday, April 2 . I will then forward them to the Human Resources Department who will contact you at a later date. My expectation is that all Riverbend Golf Complex full time and regular part-time employees will continue to maintain excellent professional customer service throughout these difficult times. I will continue to keep you informed of progress regarding the RFP contractor selection process as it occurs. Thank you for your - continued patience and integrity, it is appreciated. cc: Tony McCarthy, City Administrative Officer% Barney Wilson, Parks Director Don Olson, Human Resources Director Rose Nelson, Human Resources MEMORANDUM DATE: March 18 , 1993 TO: Paul Battle Z.O �r ' FROM: Patrice Thorell, Acting Riverbend Golf Complex Manager SUBJECT: RIVERBEND LAYOFF POLICY FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES As you know, the City of Kent has a Request for Proposals process underway regarding the future management of Riverbend Golf Complex. If a contractor is selected, transition will most likely take place between May 1 and July 1, 1993 . The City of Kent is very concerned about the affect of pending layoffs at Riverbend and therefore is making preparations to lessen the financial impact upon you and your family. Here is an overview of possible future employment options. 1. Riverbend part-time employees may be interviewed by contractor to fill contractor' s new positions at Riverbend Golf Complex. 2 . Riverbend part-time employees may be terminated through layoff. If you would like to have your application and resume forwarded to the incoming contractor (if the Complex is contracted) , please fill out the attached application. Attach your resume and turn them in to me by Friday, April 2 . I will forward them to the contractor when or if appropriate. My expectation is that all Riverbend employees will continue to maintain excellent professional customer service throughout these difficult times. I will continue to keep you informed of progress regarding the RFP contractor ' s selection process as it occurs. Thank you for your continued patience and integrity, it is appreciated. cc: Tony McCarthy, City Administrative Officer Barney Wilson, Parks Director Don Olson, Human Resources Director Rose Nelson, Human Resources f)" Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CLID 333 (LID 333 , 338, 339) BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT h� 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: �fhe Operations adop- tion of an ordinance establishing the consolidated LID, fixing the amount and interest rates and providing for the sale and delivery to Lehman Brothers,ao&uthorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers to purchase the bond in the amount of $397 , 413 . The LID bonds are being issued to provide funding for installation of a traffic signal and improvements and for sanitary sewer line improvements in the City's downtown business district and the Hilltop Avenue north of Kent. ktile vends and J 3 . EXHIBITS: Bond ordinance and purchase contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 2-0 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL AC ION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember �ddll/_seconds to adopt Bond Ordinance No. 3 establishing CLID 333 (LIDS 333 , 338 and 339) and to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers in the amount of $397, 413 . DISCUSSION: M ACTION• r v"' ' CAV Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to local improvement districts; establishing Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. and Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 333 et al. ; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity and denominations of the Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. Bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on local improvement district assessment installments. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , heretofore has created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 333 , 338 and 339 for various purposes; and WHEREAS, RCW 35. 45 . 160 authorizes the establishment of consolidated local improvement districts for the purpose of issuing bonds only and provides that if the governing body of any municipality orders the creation of such consolidated local improvement district, the money received from the installment payment of the principal of and interest on assessments levied within the original local improvement districts shall be deposited in a consolidated local improvement district bond redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated local improvement district bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Consolidation of Local Improvement Districts. For the purpose of issuing bonds only, those local improvement districts of the City established by the following •ordinances, respectively, the 30-day period for making cash payment of omes0z.0i assessments without interest in each local improvement district having expired in the case of the assessments for each local improvement district, are consolidated into a consolidated local improvement district to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. : Local Improvement Created by District No. Ordinance No. 333 338 339 Section 2 . Bond Fund. There is created and established in the office of the City Finance Director for Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. a special consolidated local improvement district fund to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 333 et al. (the "Bond Fund") . All money presently on hand representing collections pertaining to installments of assessments and interest thereon in each of the local improvement districts listed in Section 1 shall be transferred to and deposited in the Bond Fund, and all collections pertaining to assessments on the assessment rolls of those local improvement districts when hereafter received shall be deposited in the Bond Fund to redeem outstanding Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. bonds. Section 3 . Authorization and Description of Bonds . Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. bonds (the "Bonds") shall be issued in the total principal sum of $ being the total amount on the assessment rolls of Local Improvement Districts Nos. 333 , 338 and 339 remaining uncollected after the expiration of the 30-day interest-free prepayment period. The 0076502.0► -2- Bonds shall be dated April 1, 1993 , and shall be numbered from 1 to inclusive, in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington, and.- New York, New York) deems necessary for the purpose of identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the denomination of $ and Bonds Nos. 2 to , inclusive, shall be in the denomination of $5, 00o.00 each. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds shall bear interest, payable annually beginning , 1994 , and shall mature on in the years and amounts in accordance with the following schedule: Bond Numbers Maturity Interest (Inclusive) Years Amounts Rates .r For the purpose of RCW 35 .49 . 020 only, the Bonds maturing in , (except $ of Bond No. 1] , shall be allocated to LID No. 339 . Section 4 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register") . Such Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The 0076502.01 -3- transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's receiving the Bond to be transferred, cancelling it and issuing a new certificate in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the name and address of the transferee on the Bond Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the transferred Bond but may have a different inventory reference number or control number. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. Section 5. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Bond Fund and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts mailed to the registered owners on the interest payment date at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. Section 6 . Redemption Provisions. The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest on all unpaid Bonds, by mailing, not less than 15 nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption, notice of such redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to 0076502.01 -4- the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice. The requirements of this section shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. Section 7 . Form, and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 et al. Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly omasoz.oi -5- executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bond. Section 8 . Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the om UMOI -6- owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 9 . Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A.8-102 and 62A. 8-105. Section 10. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") , are applicable to the Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the W765M.01 -7- effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Section 11. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Except as provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, bond counsel shall not be required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other sales material issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. 0076502.01 -8- LEHMAN BROTHERS CITY OF KENT, WASIBNGTON � Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 PURCHASE CONTRA April 6, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Lehman Brothers, a Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Purchaser") is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $ principal amount of Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 333 Guarranty Fund Bonds (the 'Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in the conditionsaof our Purchlase Contract ch when efordthe yBonds.elThose ler a ll constitute the terms and terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph i of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the 'Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shallaurrchhmouni soe, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $ principal the Bonds, and only that amount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), in marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Bonds containing such revisions �� and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Finance Director and the City Attorney of the Seller deem necessary, and further authorizes the use of the Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. LEHMAN BROTHERS DIVISION SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AN AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY 999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 4000 SEATTLE,WA 98104 206 344 3592 FAX 2D6 344$073 4. The Seller represents, warrants to, and agrees with the Purchaser, as of the date hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that: a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; c. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when issued and paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws generally affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended except with the written consent of the Purchaser at the time of Closing; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement which shall be available within seven days of the date this Purchase Contract is approved so that the Final Official Statement is available to accompany confirmations that the Purchaser sends to its customers in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12(b)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and with the requirements of Rule G-32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, shall be accurate and complete in all material aspects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement, which will be available to Purchaser seven days after this Purchase Contract is approved, shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. —2— 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: (1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of the Seller; (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the federal income tax exemption of the interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; (3) International and national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the Bonds; or (4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made. b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized, GO that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and Final Official Statement (collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial and statistical data contained therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; —3— (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph k of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing as a city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to pass the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; (iii) the sections of the Official Statement entitled "AUTHORIZATION," "SECURITY" (with the exception of the third paragraph relating to Guaranty Fund balances, the sixth paragraph in the subsection relating to Foreclosure Proceedings and the final paragraph relating to additional LIDs), "THE BONDS," "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES", conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; and (iv) that assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law; except that interest on the Bonds received by corporations may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and, in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax; (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion or opinions in subparagraph (3) above as if it or they were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; —4— (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bonds or other obligations, and has not failed to honor the provisions of any law providing for the restoring of a debt service reserve fund to required levels; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by the City Finance Director; (11) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and (12) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, and the Seller's other consultants and advisors, and the costs of preparing, printing, executing and registering the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the costs of preparing, printing and distributing the Final and Preliminary Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), the fees and disbursements of the Purchaser's counsel, if any, the printing and filing of blue sky and legal investment surveys, where necessary, the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds, and the Purchaser's travel expenses. —5— EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a. Purchase Price: $ per $ par value, or $ , which reflects an underwriting discount of $ , plus accrued interest from April 15, 1993 to the date of Closing. b. Denominations: $5,000 except for Bond No. 1, which shall be in the denomination of $ c. Dated Date: April 15, 1993. d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. e. Interest Payable: Interest will be payable annually on each April 15, beginning April 15, 1994. f. Maturity Schedule: Bond Nos. _ — — shall mature on April 15, 2005, Bond Nos. shall mature on April 15, 2011, and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below: Due Interest Year Amount —Rate 2005 $ 2011 g. Net Interest Cost: Average Interest Rate: Assessment Rate: h. Redemption: The Seller reserves the right to redeem the Bonds on any annual principal and interest payment date at 100% of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. i. Location and Estimated Closing Date: Seattle, Washington, April _, 1993. j. Required Ratings of Bonds: None. k. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman. 1. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire. m. Offer Expires: April 6, 1993, 11:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight Savings Time. n. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. RBK:ks0115C —8— Kent City council Meeting Date_ April 20, 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: REFUNDING OF 1980, 1986 and 1990 VOTED BONDS - BOND ORDINANCE & PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, Council is requested to adopt a bond ordinance and give authorization to the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. The bond issuance will be for approximately $14 , 545, 000 to refinance the callable portion ($12 , 755, 000) of the 1980, 1986 and 1990 Voted Bonds. The issuance rate will be approximately 5. 1 percent and will save the City approximately $750, 000 in present value debt service savings. The refinancing will allow a property tax reduction of approximately 1. 68 cents per thousand of assessed valuation. As a result, the owner of a $100, 000 home will save approxi- mately $28 . 56 per year in property tax. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bond ordinance and purchase contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 2-0 (Houser not present) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Bond Ordinance No. and to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION• ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 4C DRAFT DATED MARCH 16, 1993 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $ par value of Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , of the City to provide funds with which to pay the cost of advance refunding the callable portions of the City's outstanding Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1980, Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1986, and Unlimited Tax, General Obligation Bonds, 1990, and the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund; providing for .and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the refunding bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement with Bank of Washington, as refunding trustee; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2198 , passed December 17 , 1980, the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , heretofore issued its Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1980 (the "1980 Bonds") , in the original principal amount of $450, 000, and by Section 1 of that ordinance the City reserved the right and option to redeem the 1980 Bonds maturing on or after February 11 1991, on February 11 1990, and on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $235, 000 principal amount of 1980 Bonds maturing on February 1 of each of the years 1994 through 2000, inclusive, bearing interest at various rates from 7 . 00% to 7 .40% (the "Refunded 1980 Bonds") ; and 0014553.01 WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2684, passed December 15, 1986, the City heretofore issued its Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1986 (the "1986 Bonds") , in the original principal amount of $12 , 303 , 000, and by Section 1 of that ordinance the City reserved the right and option to redeem the 1986 Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 1997 , on December 1, 1996, and on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $8 , 250, 000 principal amount of 1986 Bonds maturing on December 1 of each of the years 1997 through 2006 , inclusive, bearing interest at various rates from 6. 60% to 7 . 00% (the "Refunded 1986 Bonds") ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2948 , passed November 61 1990, the City heretofore issued its Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1990 (the "1990 Bonds") , in the original principal amount of $6 , 700, 000, and by Section 6 of that ordinance the City reserved the right and option to redeem the 1990 Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2001, on December 11 2000, and on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $4 , 280, 000 principal amount of 1990 Bonds maturing on December 1 of each of the years 2001 through 2004 , inclusive, and in the year 2009 and bearing interest at various rates from 6.90% to 7 .30% (the "Refunded 1990 Bonds") ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined' that the Refunded 1980 Bonds, Refunded 1986 Bonds and Refunded 1990 Bonds 0074553.01 -2- (collectively, the "Refunded Bonds") may be refunded by the issuance and sale of the general obligation bonds authorized herein (the "Bonds") so that a substantial saving will be effected by the difference between the principal and interest costs over the life of the Bonds and the principal and interest costs over the life of the outstanding Refunded Bonds but for such refunding, which refunding will be effected by (a) The issuance of the Bonds; (b) The payment of the interest on the Refunded 1980 Bonds when due up to and including August 1, 1993 , and, on August 1, 1993 , the call, payment and redemption of all the outstanding Refunded 1980 Bonds at a price of par; (c) The payment of the interest on the Refunded 1986 Bonds when due up to and including December 1, 1996, and, on December 11 1996, the call, payment and redemption of all the outstanding Refunded 1986 Bonds at a price of par; and (d) The payment of the interest on the Refunded 1990 Bonds when due up to and including December 11 2000, and, on December 1, 2000, the call, payment and redemption of all the outstanding Refunded 1990 Bonds at a price of par; and WHEREAS, in order to effect that refunding in the manner that will be most advantageous to the City and its taxpayers, the City Council finds it necessary and advisable that certain acquired obligations (hereinafter defined) bearing interest and maturing at the time or times necessary to accomplish the refunding as aforesaid be purchased out of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to issue and sell $ par value of unlimited tax general 0074553.01 -3- obligation refunding bonds to provide the funds necessary to advance refund the Refunded Bonds and to pay the costs of the refunding and the issuance and sale of the Bonds, and Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") has offered to purchase those Bonds under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1 . Debt Capacity. The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the city as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 1993 is $ , and the City has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by (a) limited tax general obligation bonds and conditional sales contracts in the principal amount of $ incurred within the limit of up to 3/4 of 1% of the value of the taxable property within the city permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, and (b) unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $ incurred within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City for capital purposes only, and the amount of indebtedness for which the Bonds are authorized herein to be issued is $ Section 2 . Authorization of Bonds. The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable unlimited tax general obligation refunding bonds evidencing that indebtedness in the amount of $ for the purpose of providing the funds required to: OW1553.01 -4- (a) Pay the interest on the Refunded 1980 Bonds when due up to and including August 1, 1993 , and on August 1, 1993, to call, pay and redeem all of the outstanding Refunded 1980 Bonds at a price of par; (b) Pay the interest on the Refunded 1986 Bonds when due up to and including December 11 1996, and on December 11 1996, to call, pay and redeem all of the outstanding Refunded 1986 Bonds at a price of par; and (c) Pay the interest on the Refunded 1990 Bonds when due up to and including December 1, 2000, and on December 1, 2000 , to call, pay and redeem all of the outstanding Refunded 1990 Bonds at a price of par; (collectively, the "Refunding Plan") , and to pay the costs of the refunding and the issuance and sale of the Bonds. $ of the general indebtedness to be incurred by the issuance of the Bonds shall be within the limit of up to 3/4 of 1% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein. Section 3 . Description of Bonds . The Bonds shall be called Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , of the City (the "Bonds") ; shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $ ; shall be dated April 1, 1993 ; shall be in the denomination of $5, 000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity; shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for purposes of identification; shall bear interest at the rates set forth below (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) , payable semiannually on each June 1 and December 11 commencing December 1, 1993 ; and shall mature on 0074553.01 -5- December 1 in years and amounts and bear interest at the rates per annum as follows: Maturity Principal Interest Dates Amounts Rates 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 All of the principal amount of the Bonds maturing in the years through , inclusive, (and $ of the principal amount of the Bonds maturing on December 1, , J shall constitute nonvoted debt of the City. Section 4 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register") . The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. _ Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon 0074553.01 -6- and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Sect 5 . payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. Section 6 . O tional Redemption and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. Bonds maturing in the years 1993 through 2002 , inclusive shall be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem those Bonds prior to their stated maturity dates. The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds maturing on or after December 11 2003 , prior to their stated maturities dates as a whole or in part (within one or more maturities selected by the City and by lot within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine) , on December 11 2002 , or on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. 0074553.01 -7- Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of $5, 000 or any integral multiple thereof, may be redeemed. If less than all of the principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered owner) of the same maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed. The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be cancelled. Section 7 . Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to 0074553.01 -8- Moody Is Investors Service, Inc. , and Standard & PoorJs Corporation at their offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to Lehman Brothers at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the City Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Sect g , Failure to Redeem Bonds . If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the city shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the bond redemption fund hereinafter created and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of that unpaid Bond. Section 9 . Pledge of Taxes. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to levy taxes annually without limitation as to rate or amount on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and the full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection -of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest. Sect lo . Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed or lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent 0074553.01 -9- with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on 0074553.01 -10- behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Section 11. Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 12 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take 0074553.01 -11- any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that, to the extent arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") , are applicable to the Bonds, it will take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Section 13 . Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A. 8-102 and 62A. 8-105 . Section 14 . Advance Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue advance refunding bonds pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or use money available from any other lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then- outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the "defeased Bonds") and to pay the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If 0074553.01 -12- money and/or "government obligations" (as defined in Chapter 39 . 53 RCW, as now or hereafter amended) maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts (together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund irrevocably pledged to that redemption and retirement of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the "trust account") , then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account. The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money in any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine. Section 15 . Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds. There is created and established in the office of the Finance Director of the City a special fund designated as the Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bond Fund, 1993 (the "Bond Fund") . Accrued interest on the Bonds, if any, received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Bond Fund. All principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of this ordinance. All taxes collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund. Section 16. Refunding of the Refunded Bonds. W74553.01 -13- (a) Appointment of Refunding Trustee. Bank is appointed the Refunding Trustee. (b) Acquisition of Acquired Obligations. All of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds except for the accrued interest received, if any, which shall be deposited in the Bond Fund, shall be deposited immediately upon the receipt thereof with the Refunding Trustee to discharge the obligation of the City to carry out the Refunding Plan by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the Refunding Trustee's simultaneous purchase of United States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness and/or Notes--State and Local Government Series or other direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America (the "Acquired Obligations") , bearing such interest and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide, together with a beginning cash balance of $ (which amount may be increased or decreased) , for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. The Acquired Obligations are listed and more particularly described in Schedule A attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement between the City and the Refunding Trustee, but are subject to substitution as set forth below. (c) Substitution of Acquired Obligations. Prior to the purchase of any such Acquired Obiigations, the City reserves the right to substitute other direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America ("Government Obligations") for any of the Acquired Obligations and to use any savings created thereby for any 0074557.01 -14- lawful City purpose if, (a) in the opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, the City's bond counsel, the interest on the Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Sections 103 , 148 and 149 (d) of the Code, and (b) such substitution shall not impair the timely payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan, so verified by a nationally recognized firm of certified public accountants. After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substitute therefor cash or Government Obligations subject to the conditions that such money or securities held by the Refunding Trustee shall be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not cause the Bonds to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and regulations thereunder in effect on the date of such substitution and applicable to obligations issued on the issue date of the Bonds, and that the City obtain, at its expense: (1) verification by a nationally recognized firm of certified public accountants acceptable to the Refunding Trustee confirming that the payments of principal of and interest on the substitute Acquired Obligations, if paid when due, and any other money held by the Refunding Trustee will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan; and (2) an opinion from Foster Pepper & Shefelman, bond counsel to the City, its successor, or other nationally recognized bond counsel to the City, to the effect that the disposition and substitution or purchase of such securities, under the statutes, rules and regulations then in force and applicable to the Bonds, will not cause the interest on the 0074553.01 -15- Bonds or the Refunded Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such disposition and substitution or purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the Bonds. Any surplus money resulting from the sale, transfer, other disposition or redemption of the Acquired Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be released from the trust estate and transferred to the City to be used for any lawful City purpose. (d) Administration of Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trustee is authorized and directed to purchase the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and to make the payments required to be made by the Refunding Plan from the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and money deposited with the Refunding Trustee pursuant to this ordinance. All Acquired 'Obligations (or substitute obligations) and the money deposited with the Refunding Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably, invested and applied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinances Nos. 2198 , 2684 and 2948 , this ordinance, Chapter 39 . 53 RCW and other applicable statutes of the State of Washington, and the Refunding Trust Agreement. All necessary and proper fees, compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee for the Bonds and all other costs incidental to establishing the escrow to accomplish the refunding of the Refunded Bonds and costs related to the issuance and delivery of the -Bonds, including bond printing, rating service fees, insurance premiums, verification fees, bond counsel's fees and other related expenses, shall be paid out of the _ r proceeds of the Bonds. 0074553.01 -16- (e) Authorization for Ref Unding Trust A reement. In order to carry out the Refunding Plan provided for by this ordinance, the r is authorized and directed to execute and Mayor or Finance Directo deliver to the Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and by this reference made a part hereof, setting forth the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection with the payment, redemption and retirement of the Refunded Bonds as provided herein and stating that the provisions for payment of the fees, compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee set forth therein are satisfactory to it. Prior to executing the Refunding Trust Agreement, the. Mayor or Finance Director is authorized to make such changes therein which do not change the substance and purpose thereof or which assure that the escrow provided therein and the Bonds are in compliance with the requirements of federal law governing the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The City calls for redemption on August 1, 1993 , all of the Refunded 1980 Bonds at par plus accrued interest; on December 11 1996, all of the Refunded 1986 Bonds at par plus accrued interest; and on December 11 2000, all of the Refunded 1990 Bonds at par plus accrued interest. Such calls for redemption shall be irrevocable after the delivery of the Bonds to the initial purchaser thereof. The dates on which the Refunded Bonds are called for redemption are the earliest dates, respectively, on which those Refunded Bonds may be called for redemption. 0074553.01 -17- The proper City officials are authorized and directed to cause the fiscal agencies to give such notices as required, at the times and in the manner required by Ordinances Nos. 2198, 2684 and 2948 in order to effect the redemption prior to their maturities of the Refunded 1980 Bonds, Refunded 1986 Bonds and Refunded 1990 Bonds, respectively. Section 18 . City Findings with Respect to Refunding. The City Council finds and determines that the issuance and sale of the Bonds at this time will effect a saving to the City and its taxpayers and is in the best interest of the City and in the public interest. In making such finding and determination, the City Council has given consideration to the fixed maturities of the Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Bonds and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and other money of the City used in the Refunding Plan pending payment and redemption cf the Refunded Bonds . The City Council further finds and determines that the money to be deposited with the Refunding Trustee for the Refunded Bonds in accordance with Section 16 of this ordinance, together with known earned income from the investments thereof, will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan and discharge and satisfy the obligations of the City under Ordinance No. 2198 with respect to the Refunded 1980 Bonds, Ordinance No. 2684 with respect to the Refunded 1986 Bonds and Ordinance No. 2948 with respect to the Refunded 1990 Bonds and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants and agreements of the City therein made or provided for as to the 0074553.01 -18- Refunded Bonds and that the Refunded Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding under such ordinances immediately upon the deposit of such money with the Refunding Trustee. Section 19 . A roval of Bond Purchase Contract. Lehman Brothers of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract dated , 1993 (the "Bond Purchase Contract") , to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the city's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Except as provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, bond counsel shall not be required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other sales material issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. . The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary, including reviewing and executing the final official statement, for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the 0074553.01 -19- purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 20. Preliminary official Statement Deemed "Final" . The City Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated , 1993 (the "Preliminary official Statement") , prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds. For the sole purpose of the purchaser's compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (b) (1) , the City "deems final" that Preliminary official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates, ratings, and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters. Section 21 . Temporary Bond. Pending the printing, execution and delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may cause to be executed and delivered to the purchaser a single temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the Bonds. The temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest rates, principal payment dates and terms and covenants as the definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully registered Bond in the name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable to the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for definitive Bonds as soon as they are printed, executed and available for delivery. 0074553.01 -20- Sect 22 . Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. By DAN KELLEHER, Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel and Bond Counsel for the City day of 1993 . Passed the Y 1993 . Approved the day of day of 1993 . Published the Y I certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. and passed by the City Co uncil of the City of Kent, Washington, approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk 0074553.01 -2 1- LEHMAN BROTHERS CITY OF KENT MNGTON Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 Pl RRCHASE CQNI A T April 6, 1993 Mayor and City Council Members City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent, Washington (the "Seller") all of its $. principal amount of Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 (the "Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph i of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the "Bond Ordinance ) in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser al purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $ principal amount of the Bonds, for a purchase price set forth in paragraph a of Exhibit A. The Purchaser's payment to the Seller will reflect accrued interest to the date of Closing and any underwriting discount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official'Statement dated March , 1993, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B, for marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement, ) for the Bonds containing such revisions and additions' to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Seller deems necessary, and further authorizes the use of the I Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the c g, Bonds. LEHKAJN BROTHERS DIVISION SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AN AMERIC&N EXPRESS COMPANY 999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 4000 SEATTLE.NVA 99104 106 344 3392 FAX 106 344 8073 and 4 hThe ereof laler nd aspof the date and time to) of Closing Sthath the Purchaser, as of.the date a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; c. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended at the time of Closing without the prior written consent of the Purchaser; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement, which shall be available within seven days of the date this Purchase Contract is approved so that the Final Official Statement is available to accompany confirmations that. the Purchaser sends to its customers in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15C2-12(b)( ) er the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and with the requirements of Rule G-32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, shall .be accurate and complete in all material aspects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: dition general (1) Material rt at materially ally affect the markedverse change in the financial tability bility f r affairs of the Bonds; he Seller -2- (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the federal income tax exclusion of the interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; stock exchange trading or (3) International or banking moratorium lmaterially affectingonal crisis, suspension fmarketability the of the Bonds; (4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made; (5) The Bonds shall have, at Closing, ratings from Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Corp. no less than those set forth in Exhibit A, paragraph j; or b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized, (ii) that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and Final Official Statement (collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial and statistical data contained therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; —3— (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph k of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing code city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to adopt the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser.; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; (iii) the subsections or sections of the Official Statement entitled "Authorization," "Security," "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES," conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; and (iv) that assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals; except that interest on the Bonds received by corporations may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and, in the " case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax; (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon- the opinion in subparagraph (3) above as if it were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is. pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the. legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bonds or other obligations; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official -Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by an authorized officer of the Seller; (11) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and (12) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the costs of bond ratings, the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, and the Seller's other consultants and advisors, the cost of printing the Official Statements, and the costs of drafting, printing and executing and registering the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the costs of preparing and distributing the Final and Preliminary Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on June 13, 1993, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur which results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by- the Seller and the Purchaser. —5— 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same Third icing to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc., Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4021 (Attention: Richard B. King, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall for survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and pay mentthe Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract, except that such tained in the Official Statement shall not representations and warranties con survive if Purchaser becomes aware that the facts contained in the Official Statement are incorrect or misleading and Purchaser fails to advise Seller of such incorrect or misleading statements. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at the.Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph o of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as . liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser nor the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph m of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, Richard B. King Senior Vice President Public Finance ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this _ day of April, 1993. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON r By Dan Kelleher, Mayor RBK:kg0114C Enclosures EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a. Purchas ri $ per $100.00 par value, or $ , plus accrued interest from April 1, 1993 to the date of Closing. b. Denomi� nations: $5,000 or integral multiples thereof within a single maturity. C. Da ed Date: April 1, 1993. d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. The Bonds initially will be issued in book-entry only form. e. Interut Payable: June 1 and December 1, commencing December 1, 1993. f, Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature serially on December 1 of each year in the amounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below: Due Interest Due Interest unt Year Amount Rate YearAmo Rate 1993 $ 2002 $ 1994 2003 1995 2004 1996 2005 199 2006 7 2007 199 1999 2003 2000 2009 2001 g- Net intcrect QQ5A: h. Redemvtion: The Seller reserves the right to redeem the Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2003, in whole or in part at any time, with those maturities selected by the City (and by lot within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine) on and after June 1, 2003, at par, p lus interest to the date of redemption. - i. Estimated Cloaing Date and Location: On or about April 22, 1993 in Seattle, Washington. j. Required Ratings of Bonds: Moody's — and Standard & Poor's k. Bond ounsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle, Washington. 1. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire. In. OfferExpires: April 6, 1993 at 11:59 p.m., Pacific Daylight Savings Time. n. Srosa Underwriting SDLQad: o. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. RBK:kg0114C -7- Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: REFUNDING OF 1978 AND 1989 COUNCILMANIC BONDS - BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, Council is requested to adopt a bond ordinance and authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. The bond issuance will be for approximately $2 , 740, 000 to refinance the callable portion ($2 , 495, 000) of the 1978 and 1989 Councilmanic Bonds. The issuance rate will be approximately 4 . 6 percent and will save the City approxi- mately $152 , 000 in present value debt service savings. The debt service savings can be used to finance future Capital Improvements that will be identified in the 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Plan update. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bond ordinance and purchase contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 2-0 (Houser not present) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Bond Ordinance No. and to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION• ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 4D 4 D CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $�— par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , of the City to provide funds with which to pay the cost of refunding the ty's outstanding Limited Tax callable portions of the Ci General Obligation Bonds, 1978 , and Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1989 , and the costs .of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund; providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the refunding bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of of an agreement with Washington, as refunding trustee; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2092 passed March 81 1978 , the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , heretofore issued its Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1978 (the 111978 Bonds" ) , in the original principal amount of $1 , 500, 000, and by section 3 of that ordinance the City reserved the right and option to redeem the 1978 Bonds maturing on or after July 1, 1989 , on July 1, 1988 , and on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $550, 000 principal amount of 1978 Bonds maturing on 7uly 1 of each of the years 1994 through 1998 , inclusive, bearing interest at various rates from 5 . 80$ to 6 . 00% (the "Refunded 1978 Bonds") ; and 0075563.01 WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2835, passed February 21, 1989 , the City heretofore issued its Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1989 (the 111989 Bonds") , in the original principal amount of $2 , 980, 000, and by Section 6 of that ordinance the City reserved the right and option to redeem the 1989 Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1997 , on February 1, 1996, at a price of 102% of par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $1, 945 , 000 principal amount of 1989 Bonds maturing on February 1 of each of the years 1997 through 2004 , inclusive, bearing interest at various rates from 7 . 10% to 7 . 40% (the "Refunded 1989 Bonds" ) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Refunded 1978 Bonds and Refunded 1989 Bonds (collectively, the "Refunded Bonds") may be refunded by the issuance and sale of the general obligation bonds authorized herein (the "Bonds") so that a substantial saving will be effected by the difference between the principal and interest costs over the life of the Bonds and the principal and interest costs over the life of the outstanding Refunded Bonds but for such refunding, which refunding will be effected by (a) The issuance of the Bonds; (b) The payment of the interest on the Refunded 1978 Bonds when due up to and including July 1, 1993 , and, on July 1, 1993 , the call, payment and redemption of all the outstanding Refunded 1978 Bonds at a price of par; and (c) The payment of the interest on the Refunded 1989 Bonds when due up to and including February 1, 1996 , and, on February 1, 1996 , the call, payment and redemption of all the outstanding Refunded 1989 Bonds at a price of 102% of par; 0075563.01 -2- ' and WHEREAS, to effect that refunding in the manner that will be most advantageous to the City and its taxpayers, the City Council finds it necessary and advisable that certain acquired obligations (hereinafter defined) bearing interest and maturing at the time or times necessary to accomplish the refunding as aforesaid be purchased out of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to issue and sell $ par value of limited tax general obligation refunding bonds to provide the funds necessary to refund the Refunded Bonds and to pay the costs of the refunding and the issuance and sale of the Bonds, and Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. ( "Lehman Brothers") has offered to purchase those Bonds under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section_i. Debt Capacity. The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 1993 is $ The City has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by (a) limited tax general obligation bonds and conditional sales contracts in the principal amount of $ incurred within the limit of up to 3/4 of 1% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, and (b) unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of 0075563.01 -3- $ incurred within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City for capital purposes only, issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City. The amount of indebtedness for which the Bonds are authorized herein to be issued is $ and the City expects to issue simultaneously with the Bonds $ of additional indebtedness to be evidenced by the City's Unlimited Tax General .Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 . Section 2 . Authorization of Bonds . The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation refunding bonds evidencing that indebtedness in the amount of $ for the purpose of providing the funds required to: (a) Pay the interest on the Refunded 1978 Bonds when due up to and including July 1, 1993 , and on July 1, 1993 , to call, pay and redeem all of the outstanding Refunded 1978 Bonds at a price of par; and (b) Pay the interest on the Refunded 1989 Bonds when due up to and including February 11 1996 , all ofdton February 1, 1996 , to call, pay and he outstanding Refunded 1989 Bonds at a price of 102% of par; (collectively, the "Refunding Plan") , and to pay the costs of the refunding and the issuance and sale of the Bonds. The general indebtedness to be incurred by the issuance of the Bonds shall be within the limit of up to 3/4 of 1% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein. Section 3 . Description of Bonds. The Bonds shall be called Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , of the City (the "Bonds") ; shall be in the aggregate principal amount of 0075563.01 -4- $ shall be dated April I , 1993 ; shall be in the denomination of $5, 000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity; shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar, (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for purposes of identification; shall bear interest at the rates set forth below (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) , payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 1993 ; and shall mature on February 1 in years and amounts and bear interest at the rates per annum as follows: Maturity Principal Interest Dates Amounts Rates 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Section 4 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds . The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register") . The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. 0075563.01 -5- Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for _. Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered 'to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Section 5 . Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. Section 6 . Optional Redemption and open Market Purchase of Bonds. Bonds maturing in the years 1994 through , inclusive shall be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem those Bonds prior to their stated maturity dates . The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds maturing on or after February 11 prior to their stated maturities dates as a whole or in part (within one or more maturities selected by 'the City and by lot within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall 0075563.0I -6- determine) , on February 1, , or on any interest payment date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of $5, 000 or any integral multiple thereof, may be redeemed. If less than all of the principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered owner) of the same maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed. The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any . or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be cancelled. Section 7 . Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar. prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed 0075563.01 -7- for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Moody's Investors Service, Inc. , and Standard & Poor's Corporation at their offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to Lehman Brothers at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the City Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Section 8 . Failure to Redeem Bonds . If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date - until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the bond redemption fund hereinafter created and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of that unpaid Bond. Section 9 . Pledge of Taxes. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to - include in its budget and levy taxes annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the--taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and the full faith, credit and resources 0075563.01 of the city are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest. Section 10 . Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed or lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 , described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears 'on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before 0075563.01 -9- the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the city by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Section 11 . Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the city at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the city's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the -Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act 0075563.0I -10- as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Sect�2 . Preservation of Tax Exem tion for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes . . The City also covenants that, to the extent arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") , are applicable to the Bonds, it will take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, . and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Sect_ 13 . Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A. 8-102 and 62A. 8-105 . Section Advance Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds . The City may issue advance refunding bonds pursuant to the laws of 0075563.01 -11- the State of Washington or use money available from any other lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then- outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the "defeased Bonds") and to pay the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If money and/or "government obligations" (as defined in Chapter 39 . 53 RCW, as now or hereafter amended) maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts (together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund irrevocably pledged to that redemption and retirement of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the "trust account") , then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account. The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money in any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine. Section 15 . Bond Fund and Deposit of Bond Proceeds . There is created. and established in the office of the Finance Director of the City a special fund designated as the Limited Tax General obligation Refunding Bond Fund, 1993 (the "Bond Fund") . Accrued interest on the Bonds, if any, received from the sale and delivery 0075563.01 -12- of the Bonds shall be paid into the Bond Fund. All principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of this ordinance. All taxes collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund. Section 16 . Refunding of the Refunded Bonds. (a) Appointment of Refunding Trustee. Bank is appointed the Refunding Trustee. (b) Acquisition of Acquired Obligations. All of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds except for the accrued interest received, if any, which shall be deposited in the Bond Fund, shall be deposited immediately upon the receipt thereof with the Refunding Trustee to discharge the obligation of the City to carry out the Refunding Plan by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the Refunding Trustee' s simultaneous purchase of United States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness and/or Notes--State and Local Government Series or other direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America (the "Acquired Obligations") , bearing such interest and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide, together with a beginning cash balance of $ (which amount may be increased or decreased) , for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. The Acquired obligations are listed and more particularly described in Schedule A attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement between the. 0975563.01 -13- city and the Refunding Trustee, but are subject to substitution as set forth below. (c) Substitution of Acquired Obligations. Prior to the purchase of any such Acquired Obligations, the city reserves the right to substitute other direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America ("Government Obligations") for any of the Acquired Obligations and to use any savings created thereby for any lawful City purpose 'if, (a) in the opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, the city's bond counsel, the interest on the Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Sections 103 , 148 and 149 (d) of the Code, and (b) such substitution shall not impair the timely payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan, so verified by a nationally recognized firm of certified public accountants. After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substitute therefor cash or Government Obligations subject to the conditions that such money or securities held by the Refunding Trustee shall be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not cause the Bonds to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148. of the Code and regulations thereunder in effect on the date of such substitution and applicable to obligations issued on the issue date of the Bonds, and that the City obtain, at its expense: (1) verification by a nationally recognized firm of certified public accountants acceptable to the Refunding Trustee confirming that the payments of principal of and interest on the substitute Acquired Obligations, if paid when due, 0075563.01 -14- and any other money held by the Refunding Trustee will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan; and (2) an opinion from Foster Pepper & Shefelman, bond counsel to the City, its successor, or other nationally recognized bond counsel to the City, to the effect that the disposition and substitution or purchase of such securities, under the statutes, rules and regulations then in force and applicable to the Bonds, will not cause the interest on the Bonds or the Refunded Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such disposition and substitution or purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the Bonds. Any surplus money resulting from the sale, transfer, other disposition or redemption of the Acquired Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be released from the trust estate and transferred to the City to be used for any lawful City purpose. (d) Administration of Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trustee is authorized and directed to purchase the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and to make the payments required to be made by the Refunding Plan from the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and money deposited with the Refunding Trustee pursuant to this ordinance. All Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and the money deposited with the Refunding Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably, invested and applied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinances Nos . 2092 and 2835, this ordinance, Chapter 39 . 53 RCW and other applicable statutes of the State of Washington, and the Refunding Trust Agreement. All necessary and proper fees, 0075563.01 -1 5- compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee for the Bonds and all other costs incidental to establishing the escrow to accomplish the refunding of the Refunded Bonds and costs related to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, including bond printing, rating service fees, insurance premiums, verification fees, bond counsel's fees and other related expenses, shall be paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds. (e) Authorization for Refunding Trust _ Agreement. To carry out the Refunding Plan provided for by this ordinance, the Mayor or Finance Director is authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and by this reference made a part hereof , setting forth the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection with the payment, redemption and retirement of the Refunded Bonds as provided herein and stating that the provisions for payment of the fees, compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee set forth therein are satisfactory to it. Prior to executing the Refunding Trust Agreement, the Mayor or Finance Director is authorized to make such changes therein which do not change the substance and purpose thereof or which assure that the escrow provided therein and the Bonds are in compliance with the requirements of federal law governing the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 7 . Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The city calls for redemption on July 1, 1993 , all of the Refunded 1978 Bonds at par plus accrued interest, and on February 1, 1996, all of 0075563.01 -16- the Refunded 1989 Bonds at a price of 102% of par plus accrued interest. Such calls for redemption shall be irrevocable after the delivery of the Bonds to the initial purchaser thereof. The dates on which the Refunded Bonds are called for redemption are the earliest dates, respectively, on which those Refunded Bonds may be called for redemption at a price less than 103% of par. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to cause the fiscal agencies to give such notices as required, at .the times and in the manner required by ordinances Nos. 2o92 and 2835 in order to effect the redemption prior to their maturities of the Refunded 1978 Bonds and Refunded 1989 Bonds, respectively. Section g , City Findings with Respect to Refunding. The City Council finds and determines that the issuance and sale of the Bonds at this time will effect a saving to the City and its taxpayers and is in the best interest of the City and in the public interest. In making such finding and determination, the City Council has given consideration to the fixed maturities of the Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Bonds and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and other money of the City used in the Refunding Plan pending payment and redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The City Council further finds and determines that the money to be deposited with the Refunding Trustee for the Refunded Bonds in accordance with Section 16 of this ordinance, together with known earned income from the investments thereof, will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan and discharge and 0075563.01 -1 7- satisfy the obligations of the City under Ordinance No. 2092 with respect to the Refunded 1978 Bonds and ordinance- No. 2835 with respect to the Refunded 1989 Bonds and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants and agreements of the City therein made or provided for as to the Refunded Bonds and that the Refunded Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding under such ordinances immediately upon the deposit of such money with the Refunding Trustee. Section 19 . Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Lehman -Brothers of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract dated , 1993 (the "Bond Purchase Contract") , to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the city' s best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. , Except as provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, bond counsel shall not be required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other sales material 0075563.01 -18- issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary, including reviewing and executing the final official statement, for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 20 . Preliminary Official Statement Deemed "Final" . The City Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated , 1993 (the "Preliminary Official Statement" ) , prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds . For the sole purpose of the purchaser' s compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (b) (1) , the City "deems final" that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates, ratings, and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters . Section 21 . Temporary Bond. Pending the printing, execution and delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may cause to be executed and delivered to the purchaser a single temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the Bonds. The temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest rates, principal payment dates and terms and covenants as the definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully registered Bond in the name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable W75563.Ot -19- to the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for definitive Bonds as soon as they are printed, executed and available for delivery. Section 22 . Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. . By DAN KELLEHER, Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel and Bond Counsel for the City Passed the day of 1993 . Approved the day of , 1993 . Published the day of 1993 . I certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon - indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk 0075563.01 -20- LEHMAN BROTHERS CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 PURCHASE CONTRACT April 6, 1993 Mayor and City Council Members City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent, Washington (the "Seller") all of its $ principal amount of Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 (the "Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph i of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the "Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shall purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $ of principal amount of the Bonds, for a purchase price set forth in paragraph a of Exhibit A. The Purchaser's payment to the Seller will reflect accrued interest to the date of Closing and any underwriting discount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement dated March., , 1993, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B, for marketing the Bonds, authorizes the MU preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Fr Bonds containing such revisions and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Seller deems necessary, and further authorizes the use of the Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. LEHMA.N BROTHERS DMSION SHEARSON LEHALAN BROTHERS INC. AN AMERIC'UN EXPRESS COMPANY 999 THIRD AVENUE SURE 4000 SEATTLE,WA 99104 206344 3592 FAX 2063449077 4. The Seller represents, warrants to, and agrees with the Purchaser, as of the date hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that: a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority - -to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; c. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors' rights and principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; hal e Seller, e full forceO and ieffectnancesand l hall of have been amendedyath shall The Bn the time of Closing without the prior written consent of the Purchaser; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement, which shall be available within seven days of the date this Purchase Contract is approved so that the Final Official Statement is available to accompany confirmations that the Purchaser sends to its customers in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15C2-12(b)(4) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and with the requirements of Rule G-32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, shall be accurate and complete in all material aspects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the .Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: (1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of the Seller that materially affect the marketability of the Bonds; -2- (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the federal income tax exclusion of the interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; (3) International or national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the Bonds; (4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made; (5) The Bonds shall have, at Closing, ratings from Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Corp. no less than those set forth in Exhibit A, paragraph j; or b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized, (ii) that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and Final Official Statement (collectively the Official Statements") (including the financial and statistical data contained therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; —3— (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph k of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and -- dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing code city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to adopt the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their terms, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights and by bankruptcy, principles of equity if equitable remedies are sought; (iii) the Statementof the Official subsections or sections „TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER "Authorization," "Security, FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES," conform to the Bonds and app laws; and (iv) that assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals; except that interest on the Bonds received by corporations may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and, in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S.corporations may be subject to tax; (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion in subparagraph (3) above as if it were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the, transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; —4— (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bands or other obligations; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by, an authorized officer of the Seller; (11) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and (12) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the costs of bond ratings, the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, and the Seller's other consultants and advisors, the cost of printing the Official Statements, and the costs of drafting, printing and executing and registering the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the costs of preparing and distributing the Final and Preliminary Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on June 13, 1993, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur which results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Seller and the Purchaser. _S_ 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given-to the Purchaser ` under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4075 (Attention: Richard B. King, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract, except that such representations and warranties contained in the Official Statement shall not survive if Purchaser becomes aware that the facts contained in the Official Statement are incorrect or misleading and Purchaser fails to advise Seller of such incorrect or misleading statements. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at the Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph o of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser nor the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph m of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, Richard B. King Senior Vice President Public Finance ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this — day of April, 1993. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By Dan Kelleher, Mayor RBK:kg0113C Enclosures —6— EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a, Purchase Price: $ per $100,00 par value, or $ plus accrued interest from April 1, 1993 to the date of Closing. b. Denominations: $5,000 or integral multiples thereof within a single maturity. c, natPd Date: April 1, 1993. d, Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. The Bonds initially will be issued in book—entry only form. e. Interest Payable: February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 1993. f. Maturity h ule: Bonds shall mature serially on February 1 of each year in the amounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below: Interest Due Interest Due Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 1994 $ 2000 $ 1995 2001 1996 2002 1997 2003 1998 2004 1999 g. Net Interest Cost: h. Redemption: The Bonds will not be callable prior to maturity. i. Estimat d Closilig, Date and Location: On or about April 22, 1993 in Seattle, Washington. j. Required Ratings of Bonds: Moody's and Standard & Poor's k. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle, Washington. 1. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire. In. Offer •xpires: April 6, 1993 at 11:59 p.m., Pacific Daylight Savings Time. n. Gross Underwritiuz Spread: % �$ o. Li ,;dat?d Damages: $2,000. RBK:kg0113C -7- Kent City Council Meeting ► �/ Date April 20, 1993 VV Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CRITICAL AREAS DRAFT ORDINANCE PROPOSAL (ZCA-91-3 & CPA-91-1) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This item will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on the proposed wetlands ordinance and critical areas amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. On March 8, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to forward two Alternative Wetlands ordinances to the City Council: Alterna- tive A which was the Commission' s original recommendation (September 1992) , and Alternative B which is the revised recommendation based on a citizen' s advisory committee proposal (March 1993) . Critical area regulations are required by the 1990 Growth Management Act, and are considered "interim" until the City of Kent adopts a new Comprehensive Plan which is consistent with the State act. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Planning Commission draft ordinances (Alternatives A and B) , Planning Commission Minutes of February 22 and March 8, 1993 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO \ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Xnning Councilmember seconds to accept/reject/mo Commission' s recommended wetlands ordinance A/Alternative B) , and the proposed critical ants to the Comprehensive Plan, and to direct the C to prepare the necessary ordinance and resol DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4E POSSIBLE COUNCIL MOTION ON WETLANDS/CRITICAL AREAS: Move to accept the Planning Commission's wetlands ordinance Alternative B, with the following modifications: 1. Re -instate Section 16D and 16E, in their entirety, as recommended by the citizens sub -committee; and 2. Change the administering department from the Planning Department to the Public Works Department, where appropriate. Also, to approve the proposed critical areas policy amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance and/or resolution. CITY OF ��� LU CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM April 20, 1993 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED WETLANDS ORDINANCE (CRITICAL AREAS AMENDMENTS) (ZCA-91-3 & #CPA-91-1) On March 8, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to recommend two different alternative wetland ordinances to the City Council. These alternatives, called Alternatives A and B, are attached herewith. Alternative A is the original Planning Commission recommendation introduced to the City Council in October 1992. As you may recall, the Council remanded this proposal back to the Planning Commission for further study in conjunction with review of the Chamber of Commerce draft ordinance. Alternative B is a revised recommendation based essentially on a citizens advisory committee report developed for the Commission during the period October 1992-January 1993. Background The Growth Management Act of 1990 mandates that local jurisdictions develop regulations to protect critical areas, such as wetlands. At this time, the City of Kent maintains regulations which protect steep slopes, geologic hazardous areas, and the like, but the City does not maintain comprehensive regulations with regard to wetlands. Adoption of one of the alternative wetland ordinance recommendations of the Planning Commission, together with the plan policy amendments relative to critical areas, would fulfill the critical areas protection requirement of the GM Act. The development of the wetlands ordinance has been a long and comprehensive process. The process started in 1989 with a Department of Ecology grant to conduct an inventory of wetlands in the City, and has culminated recently with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Over this span of nearly 3 1/2 years, there have been many highlights, such as: • The City of Kent has received several grants from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) which have resulted in a city-wide inventory of general wetland locations. Planning Commission Recommendation on Proposed Wetlands Ordinance April 20, 1993 Page 2 • Grants from the State have allowed the City to conduct a wetland educational program including workshops with the public, property owners, and the City Council and Planning Commission. • It took a full year (Oct 1991-Sept 1992) to develop the Planning Commission's original recommendation on the wetland ordinance (Alternative A). During this time, The Commission held 3 workshops and 8 public hearings before it reached a final recommendation. • To develop its revised recommendation (Alternative B), the Planning Commission appointed a citizens sub- committee, chaired by a member of the Commission, which met 12 times between October 1992 and January 1993. The Commission held an additional 3 workshops to review the sub -committee's report, and 2 more public hearings before recommending Alternative B. The Planning commission Recommendations) As mentioned above, the Planning Commission has recommended two optional wetland protection ordinances to the City Council. These two recommendations are: 1. Alternative A (Original Planning Commission recommended ordinance - September 1992) This alternative ordinance was presented to the City Council in October 1992. It was based in large part on a proposal to the Planning Commission developed by the Mayor's Wetlands Committee and Planning Department staff. The Planning Commission held workshops and public hearings for nearly a year before recommending it to the City Council. 2. Alternative B (Revised Planning Commission recommendation based on citizens committee input - March 1993) The original Planning Commission recommendation was remanded by the City Council back to the Commission. The Council wanted the Commission to consider the draft submitted by the Chamber of Commerce. A sub -committee was appointed by the Planning Commission which made recommendations to the Commission. Based on a review of the sub -committee's report, the Planning Commission revised their original recommendation and developed Alternative B (in March 1993). Planning Commission Recommendation on Proposed Wetlands ordinance April 20, 1993 Page 3 Chief Differences between Planning Commission Alternatives A & B Although the structure and core of both alternatives are very similar, there are several significant differences between the two recommendations of the Planning Commission. Some of the chief differences are: • Wetland Permit - Alternative A requires a separate permit for development on sites which involve wetlands. Alternative B does not; this alternative integrates wetland activities into the normal SEPA/development permit process. • Building setback line - Alternative B requires a 15-foot building setback from the wetland buffer zone. Alternative A does not. • Avoiding wetland impacts - Alternative B is somewhat more permissive in allowing filling of Class 2 and 3 wetlands, allowing up to 10,000 sq. ft. of wetland to be filled if mitigated. • Single family residences/filling of wetlands - Alternative B allows up to 2000 sq. ft. of wetlands to be filled in order to construct a single family residence, if mitigated and/or a fee in lieu of mitigation is provided. • Wetland mitigation - Alternative B allows certain wetlands to be filled, requires mitigation for this filling activity, but does not specify how mitigation is to occur. Alternative A is more explicit as to how mitigation is to occur. • Unique and Fragile areas - Kent's unique and fragile areas are designated as Class 1 wetlands under Alternative B. Under Alternative A, such areas are classified as "wetlands of outstanding significance." • Appeals - Under Alternative B, the wetland delineation decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner; no such appeal is specified in Alternative A. Action by the City Council There have been few planning efforts in the City of Kent which have been as lengthy and comprehensive as the development of the proposed wetland ordinance. The proposed regulations of either Planning Commission Recommendation on Proposed Wetlands Ordinance April 20, 1993 Page 4 alternative recommended by the Planning Commission are complicated and highly intertwined. As mentioned, nearly 3 1/2 years have been spent developing, reviewing, evaluating, and recommending a wetland protection strategy which responds to local conditions and community input. Despite the complex history and background of this issue, the decision that lies before the City Council should not be viewed as overly complex. The Council is presented here with two possible courses of action, as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. To adopt the Planning Commission's original wetlands ordinance recommendation (Alternative A) dated September 1992, together with the proposed policy amendments to the comprehensive plan relative to critical areas; or 2. To adopt the Planning Commission's revised wetlands ordinance recommendation (Alternative B) dated March 1993, together with the proposed policy amendments to the comprehensive plan relative to critical areas. Staff Comment: Should the City Council adopt the course of action outlined in #2, above, the Planning Department recommends that Section 16.D of the revised ordinance include the original language proposed by the Planning Commission in their Sept 1992 draft. We consider the deletion of Section 16.D to be a major moth -hole in the revised recommendation. The revised draft permits the filling of certain wetlands, requires mitigation, but then does not specify how this mitigation is to occur. Section 16.D contains the language which explains how to mitigate for wetland impacts and needs to be re-inserted. FNS/mp:A:WETMEMO.CC cc: Jim Harris CITY OF KENT PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS (WETLANDS) (Alternative A - September 1992) WHEREAS, wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due to flooding, erosion, soil liquefaction potential, and septic disposal limitations; and WHEREAS, in their natural state, wetlands provide many valuable social and ecological services, including controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; providing areas for groundwater recharge; preventing shoreline erosion by stabilizing the substrate; providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on wetlands for their survival, and many of which are on Washington State and Federal Endangered Species lists; providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; providing recreation opportunities; and serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education; and WHEREAS, development in wetlands results in: increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; increased shoreline erosion; degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the streamflow regimen; loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow -release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the streamflow regimen of watersheds; loss of groundwater recharge areas; and WHEREAS, buffer areas surrounding wetlands are essential to maintenance and protection of wetland functions and values, and protect wetlands from degradation by stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful or toxic substances; moderating impacts of stormwater runoff; moderating system microclimate; protecting wetland wildlife habitat from adverse impacts; maintaining and enhancing habitat diversity and/or integrity; supporting and protecting wetlands plant and animal species and biotic communities; and reducing disturbances to wetland resources caused by intrusion of humans and domestic animals; and WHEREAS, The loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands results in a detriment to public safety and welfare; replacement of such services, if possible at all, can require considerable public expenditure; and WHEREAS, a considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, polluting, and other acts inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas, and remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent hereby finds that as a result of all of the above, it is necessary to ensure protection of wetland areas in the City by discouraging activities in wetlands and in sites adjacent to wetlands that may adversely affect wetland functions and values, to encourage restoration and enhancement of already -degraded wetland systems and to encourage creation of new wetland areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that in order to accomplish this directive, the City shall amend the Kent Zoning Code to require site planning through a permit system administered by the Planning Department, in order to avoid or minimize damage to wetlands wherever possible; to require that activities not dependent upon a wetland location be located at upland sites; and to achieve no net loss of wetland area by requiring restoration of degraded former wetlands or the creation of new wetlands from upland sites to offset unavoidable losses; NOW THEREFORE, City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short Title, Authority and Purpose A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Kent Wetlands Ordinance." B. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's police powers, the Growth Management Act as codified in Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in Chapter 42.21C RCW. C. The purpose of this ordinance is to: Protect the public health, safety and welfare by preserving, protecting and restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other activities within them and wetland buffers so that nuisances or threats to safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded by: a. impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage capacity, or impairing natural flood control functions, thereby resulting in increased flood heights, frequencies or velocities on other lands; b. increasing water pollution through location of domestic waste disposal systems in wetlands; unauthorized application of pesticides and herbicides; disposal of solid waste at inappropriate sites; creation of unstable fills; or the destruction of wetland soils and vegetation; C. increasing erosion; d. decreasing breeding, nesting and feeding areas for many species of waterfowl and shorebirds, including those rare and endangered; e. interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by fish and other forms of wildlife; f. adversely altering the recharge or discharge functions of wetlands, thereby impacting groundwater or surface water supplies; g. significantly altering wetland hydrology and thereby causing either short -or long-term changes in vegetational composition, soils characteristics, nutrient cycling, or water chemistry; h. destroying sites needed for education and scientific research, such as outdoor biophysical laboratories, living classrooms, and training areas; i. interfering with public rights in navigable waters and the recreation opportunities provided by wetlands for fishing, boating, hildng, bird watching, photography and other passive uses; or j. destroying or damaging aesthetic and property values, including significant public viewsheds. 2. Protect, to the greatest extent practicable, the public against losses from unnecessary maintenance and replacement of public facilities and expenses for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and Pa City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) 3. Alert appraisers, assessors, owners and potential buyers or lessees of property to the development limitations of wetlands. D. The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Section 2: Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Activity." See "Regulated Activity" and "Allowed Activity" as defined in Section 2 herein. "Applicant" means a person who files an application for permit under this chapter and who is either the owner of the land on which that proposed Regulated Activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would actually control and direct the proposed Regulated Activity, or the authorized agent of such a person. "Best management practices" means conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxics, and sediment; and 2. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands. "City" means the City of Kent, Washington. "Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project -induced wetland and wetland buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring and contingency actions. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced wetland losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Restoration. Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. Creation. Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement. Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. "Dedication" means conveyance of land to the City or other not -for -profit entity by deed or other instrument of conveyance. "Department" means the Planning Department of the City of Kent. "Developable area" means land outside of wetlands, wetland buffers or any other restricted area on a particular piece of property. "Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure or use; any change in use of a building or structure or changes in the use of land that require a development permit from the City. "Director" means the Director of the Kent Planning Department or his/her authorized designee. "Emergent wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. 4 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) "Enhancement." See "Compensatory Mitigation." "Erosion" means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of mass wasting or the movement of wind, water, soil and/or ice. "Essential habitat" means habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered and sensitive species and state listed priority species. "Exotic" means any species of plants or animals that are foreign to the planning area. "Existing and ongoing agriculture" includes those activities conducted on lands defined as "Farm and Agricultural Land" in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops or livestock, for example, the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, operation and maintenance of ditches, irrigation systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage ditches, changes between agricultural activities, and normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than eight years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Forest practices are not included in this definition. "Extraordinary hardship" means that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance and/or rules adopted to implement this ordinance would prevent all reasonable economic use of the property. "Federal Manual" means Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, dated January 1987. "Forested wetland" means a wetland with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height. "Functions," "beneficial functions," or "functions and values" means the beneficial roles served by wetlands including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority. "Grading" means excavation or fill or any combination thereof, including the establishment of a grade following the demolition of a structure. "Growing season" means the average frost -free period of the year in Kent as recorded in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Frost/Freeze Data from Climatology of the U.S. #20, supplement /tl, or in equivalent U.S. government agency records. (crowing season, for the purposes of these regulations, may be considered to be the period from March 1 through October 31 of any calendar year. "Hydric Soil" means soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual. "Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water 5 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual. "In -kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands that have characteristics which closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a Regulated Activity. "Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands which: Are outside of and not contiguous to any 100-year floodplain of a lake, river, or stream; and 2. Have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. "Maintenance," see definition of "Repair and Maintenance." "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wedand impacts. Mitigation, in the following order of preference is: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; 6. Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation may include a combination of the above measures. "Mitigation Banking" is the collective off -site creation, restoration or enhancement of uplands, or in some instances, existing wetlands, to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts due to private development, public works projects, and other construction activities. Banking differs from most off -site compensatory mitigation projects in that mitigation banking is a program created by agencies or organizations to provide a relatively large mitigation site which will be used to compensate for many (usually unrelated) development projects; more traditional compensatory mitigation measures are typically individual projects which may give little consideration to regional wetlands management. "Native Vegetation" means plant species which are indigenous to the planning area. "Off -site compensation" means to replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. "On -site compensation" means to replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. ri City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) "Out -of -kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. "Owner" means any person having title to, a substantial beneficial interest in, or control of a building or property, including but not limited to a lessee, guardian, receiver or trustee, and the owner's duly authorized agent. "Person" means a natural person, his/her heirs, executors, administrators or assignees, or a firm, partnership or corporation and its or their successors and assignees, or a governmental entity. "Pollution" means such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of wetlands, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into wetlands as will or is likely to cause a nuisance or render such wetlands harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wildlife, fish, native vegetation or other aquatic life. "Practicable alternative means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less impacts to wetlands. It may involve using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to accomplish the project. "Priority habitats are a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration. "Priority species" are those species that are of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Priority species include those which are state - listed endangered, threatened, and sensitive species as well as other species designated by the State Department of Wildlife as species of concern or as game species. "Repair or maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter additional wetlands are not included in this definition. "Restoration." See "Compensatory Mitigation." "Scrub -shrub wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata. "Serviceable" means presently useable. "Site" means any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, where activities are proposed, performed or permitted. "Subject property" means the site where an activity requiring a permit or approval under this ordinance will occur. 7 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) "Unavoidable and necessary impacts" are impacts to wetlands that remain after an applicant for a wetland permit has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for the proposed project. "Water -dependent" means requiring the use of surface water that would be essential to fulfill the purpose of the proposed project. "Wetlands," means all those areas in the City of Kent that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions during the growing season. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving that the site was not previously a wetland. Wetlands include artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas for the purpose of mitigating conversion of wetlands. For identifying and delineating a wetland, the City of Kent shall rely on the methodology contained in the Federal Manual as defined above. "Wetlands of Outstanding Significance," means all wetlands with: 1. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened fish or animal species or for potentially extirpated plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or 2. High quality native wetland communities, including documented Natural Heritage wetland sites and sites which qualify as a Natural Heritage wetland; or 3. High quality, regionally rare wetland communities with 'irreplaceable ecological functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine wetlands, or mature forested swamps; or 4. Wetlands of exceptional local significance. The criteria for such a designation shall be developed and adopted by the City of Kent under appropriate public review and administrative appeal procedures based upon a comprehensive wetland resource management plan. The criteria may include, but not be limited to, rarity, groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites or other specific functional values within a watershed or other regional boundary. "Wetland buffer" or "wetland buffer zone" is an area that surrounds and protects a wetland from adverse impacts to the functions and values of a wetland. "Welland classes," "classes of wetlands" or "wetland types" means the wetland classes or subclasses of the wetlands taxonomic classification system described in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et al., 1979). "Wetlands permit" means any permit, modification, revision or variance issued, conditioned or denied pursuant this ordinance. "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions in this ordinance and the procedures specified in Section 4 herein. R City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Section 3: General Provisions. A. Applicability. The requirements of this ordinance apply to all activities and development occurring in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in Section 2 herein. Property located in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in this ordinance is subject to both its zoning classification regulations and to the additional requirements imposed under this ordinance. In any case where there are irreconcilable differences between the provisions of the underlying zone and this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply. B. Protection of General Public. It is expressly the purpose of this ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by the terms of this ordinance. C. Compliance by Owners. It is the specific intent of this ordinance to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon the owner of the property or land within its scope, and no provision of, nor any term used in this ordinance is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City, its officers, officials or employees. D. Right of Entry. Upon presentation of the proper credentials, the Director or the Director's duly authorized representative may, with the consent of the owner or occupier of land, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter at reasonable times, any land subject to such consent or warrant, to perform the duties imposed by this ordinance. E. Liability. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for liability on the part of the City, or its officers, officials, employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any owner of property or land to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any inspection, notice order, certificate, permission or approval authorized or issued in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this ordinance, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any manner to the enforcement of this ordinance by its officers, officials, employees or agents. F. Enforcement Authority; Rules. 1. Enforcement. The Director is hereby designated the City Official to exercise the powers granted by this ordinance. 2. Rules. The Director is authorized to adopt, in accordance with administrative procedures set by ordinance, such rules as are necessary to implement the requirements of this ordinance and to carry out the duties of the Director hereunder. Section 4: Lands to Which this Chapter Applies A. Geographic Scope. The boundaries within which this ordinance shall be effective are coextensive with the corporate City limits, and shall include all unincorporated areas annexed to the City on and after the effective date of this ordinance. B. Determination of Wetland Boundary. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined by the applicant through the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition provided in Section 2 of this ordinance. Qualified professionals shall perform wetland delineations using the Federal Manual. Alternatively, the applicant may request the Department to perform the delineation, provided the applicant provides the Department with the necessary funding to retain and 9 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) manage a qualified professional. The Department shall consult with qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed to perform the delineation. The applicant will be charged for the costs incurred. Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland boundary, the Department shall verify the accuracy of, and may render adjustments to, the boundary delineation, and the applicant may be charged by the Department for costs incurred in verifying the accuracy of the delineation. In the event the adjusted boundary delineation is contested by the applicant, the Department may, at the applicant's expense, obtain a second expert to perform a delineation. The decision of the second expert shall be final. Section 5. Wetlands Rating System A. The following rating system is hereby adopted for the purpose of determining the size of wetland buffers and otherwise reviewing permits under this ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al., 1979) contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses. Category 1 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: a. The presence of species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, or other species identified by the City of Kent as needing special protection or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; b. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; C. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water; or d. The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence. 2. Category 2 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria, and which are not Category 1 wetlands: a. Wetlands greater than one acre in size; b. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; C. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class; d. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees. 3. Category 3 Wetlands. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes, and which are not Category 1 or Category 2 wetlands. B. Wetlands of Outstanding Significance are wetlands defined in Section 2 herein, and are located within the Unique and Fragile Overlay Zone created by Kent Zoning Code Section 15.08.260, adopted by Ord./Res. _ and mapped on the City's Hazard Area Development Limitations Map, except for the Kent Sewage Lagoon. 10 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) C. In order to obtain a permit to conduct regulated activities in a wetland of outstanding significance, an applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that application of the standards contained in this ordinance would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. D. Except in the case of wetlands of outstanding significance, regulated or allowed activities shall be permitted in isolated Category 2 wetlands of 2500 square feet or less, and isolated Category 3 wetlands of 10,000 square feet or less, provided that adequate on - site or off -site compensatory mitigation is provided in accordance with Section 16 herein. Section 6. Wetland Permit Required; Regulated Activities A. No regulated activity, other than maintenance and upkeep of their property by owner - occupiers of 10,000 square feet or less of isolated Category 2 or Category 3 wetlands, shall be undertaken in a wetland or wetland buffer without first obtaining a wetlands permit from the Director. Regulated activities are any of the following activities which occur in a wetland or its buffer: 1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind; 2. The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material; 3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table; 4. The driving of pilings; 5. The placing of obstructions; 6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; 7. The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or 8. Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants. 9. Where a regulated activity is proposed which would be partly within and partly without the wetland or wetland buffer, a wetland permit shall be required for the entire regulated activity. The standards of this ordinance shall apply only to that part of the regulated activity which occurs within the wetland or wetland buffer unless the underlying zoning requires that the entire regulated activity comply with all or part of this ordinance. Section 7: Allowed Activities. A. No wetland permit required. The following activities shall be allowed within a wetland or wetland buffer without a wetland permit to the extent that they are not prohibited by other local, state (forest practices and conversions shall be governed by Chapter 76.09 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder) or federal law and provided that they are conducted using best management practices. This permit exemption does not apply 11 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) where such activities result in the conversion of a wetland or wetland buffer to a use to which it was not previously subjected. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife; 2. Outdoor recreational activities, including fishing, bird watching, hiking, boating, horseback riding, swimming, canoeing, and bicycling; 3. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions or water sources; 4. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities; 5. The repair and maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches; 6. Educational activities, scientific research, and use of nature trails; 7. The placement of navigation aids and boundary markers; 8. The placement of boat mooring buoys; 9. Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case, wetland impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; B. Notice required. The following activities and uses are allowed within wetlands and wetland buffers provided that written notice at least ten days prior to the commencement of such work has been given to the Director with such exemptions as noted in Section 6.A and provided that wetland impacts are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored: Normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Maintenance and repair does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original structure, facility, or improved area and does not include the construction of a maintenance road; and 2. Minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions. Section 8. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit A. Criteria for Granting a Temporary Emergency Permit. Notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance or any other laws to the contrary, the Director may issue a temporary emergency wetlands permit if: 1. The Director determines that an imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment will occur if an emergency permit is not granted; and 2. The threat or loss may occur before a wetlands permit can be issued or modified under the procedures otherwise required by this ordinance 12 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) - B. Conditions of Emergency Permit. Any emergency permit granted shall: 1. Incorporate to the greatest extent practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the standards and criteria required for non -emergency activities; 2. Be limited in duration to the time required to complete the authorized emergency activity, not to exceed ninety (90) days; and 3. Require the restoration of any wetland altered as a result of the emergency activity within the ninety -day period. If restoration is not completed within ninety days, a wetland permit must be obtained in accordance with this chapter. C. Emergency Utility Repairs. Emergency repairs to utilities that require immediate attention and which would endanger the public if a temporary emergency permit were required shall be allowed for a period not exceeding 72 hours. Section 9. Prohibited Activities. Activities not specifically described by this ordinance as Allowed or Regulated, and which do not constitute Emergency Activities under Section 8 or Non -conforming Activities under Section are prohibited. In order to conduct an otherwise prohibited activity in a wetland or wetland buffer, the applicant must satisfy the requirements for a special exception, as described in Section 17. Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures. A. Inconsistent Development Prohibited. No activity or development shall be undertaken and no use shall be established in a wetland or a wetland buffer unless the Director has determined that it is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. B. Standards. A wetlands permit shall only be granted if the proposed regulated activity, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, all other applicable laws and: 1. The proposed regulated activity avoids adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers; or the applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impacts of the regulated activity are both unavoidable and necessary, and affirmative and appropriate measures are proposed as conditions which will minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and 2. The proposed regulated activity results in no net loss of wetland area; or 3. Refusal to grant a permit would deny the applicant all reasonable economic use of the subject property. C. Procedures. 1. The burden of proving that an allowed or regulated activity meets the applicable standards for a permit shall be on the applicant. 2. The applicant may be required to submit information or data, in addition to that routinely required with permit applications, sufficient to enable the Director to evaluate the proposed Activity or to prepare any necessary environmental documents. 13 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) 3. In addition to other requirements provided in this ordinance, the Director may attach to the permit any conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance and all other applicable laws. Performance bonds and fees for monitoring activities may be required to ensure compliance with the conditions. 4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Director's authority to condition or deny a project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. 5. The Department shall, to the extent practicable and feasible, consolidate the processing of wetlands related aspects of other City regulatory programs which affect activities in wetlands, such as subdivision, clearing and grading, floodplain, and environmentally sensitive chapter, etc., with the Wetland Permit process established herein so as to provide a timely and coordinated permit process. D. Application Requirements. Applications for wetland permits shall be made by the property owner, lessee, contract purchaser, or by an authorized agent thereof. 2. All applications for wetland permits shall be made to the Director on a form provided by the Director. 3. Applications shall be accompanied by the payment of the applicable filing fees, as established by rule or ordinance. 4. All applications shall contain the submittal information required by rule for wetland permits. 5. An application shall be deemed abandoned and void if the applicant has failed without reasonable justification to supply all reasonable data within 60 days of a request for it; provided that the Director may extend the period for such submission if it is determined that the delay was not the fault of the applicant. Section 11. Wetland Buffers A. Standard Buffer Zone Widths Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of Section 4. The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland in accordance with Section 5. 1. For Class 1 wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 100 feet. 2. For Class 2 and 3 wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 50 feet. Except that, isolated Class 2 wetlands of 2500 square feet or less, and isolated Class 3 wetlands of 10,000 square feet or less, shall have a minimum buffer zone of 25 feet. B. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width The City may require increased buffer zone widths on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on local conditions. 14 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must demonstrate that: 1. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of existing species; or 2. The wetland is used by species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 3. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or 4. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 15 percent. C. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Zone Width The City may reduce the standard wetland buffer zone width on a case -by -case basis where it can be demonstrated that: 1. The adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than 15 percent slopes and that no direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to wetlands will result from a regulated activity. The City may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to wetlands are discovered; and 2. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for wetland functions and values. An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 25 percent reduction in the buffer width or be less than 25 feet. D. Standard Buffer Width Averaging Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taking into account the type, intensity, scale and landscape location of the proposed land use; 2. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics which justify the averaging; 3. The land uses causing the least disturbance would be located adjacent to areas where buffer width is reduced, and that such land uses are guaranteed in perpetuity by covenant, deed restriction, easement, or other legally binding mechanism; 4. Width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values; 5. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall 15 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet. E. Except as otherwise specified, wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. F. Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone. Regulated activities shall not be allowed in a buffer zone except for the following: 1. Activities and maintenance having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands. These may include low intensity, passive recreational activities such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing. 2. Stormwater management facilities if designed according to the Draft Guidelines for Wetlands and Stormwater Management (published by the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, August 30, 1990), or other guidance which may subsequently be published by the Center for Urban Water Resources Management, University of Washington (206-782-7401), and if no reasonable alternative on -site location is available; and 3. Biofiltration swales, if sited and designed so that the buffer zone as a whole provides the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taking into account the type, location, intensity, scale and landscape location of the proposed land use. Section 12. Avoiding Wetland Impacts A. Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a wetland except where it can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary or that all reasonable economic uses are denied. B. With respect to wetlands of outstanding significance, an applicant must demonstrate that denial of the permit would impose an extraordinary hardship on the part of the applicant brought about by circumstances peculiar to the subject property. C. With respect to all other wetlands, the following provisions shall apply: For water -dependent activities, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be demonstrated where there are no practicable alternatives which would not involve a wetland or which would not have less adverse impact an a wetland, and would not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Stormwater management facilities will be considered in wetlands subject to review under the wetlands and stormwater management guidelines referenced in Section 6.1.F.2., and all other applicable provisions in this chapter, except that under no circumstances will such facilities be permitted in wetlands of outstanding significance. 2. Where nonwater-dependent activities are proposed, the applicant must demonstrate that: a. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to accomplish the project. 16 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) b. A reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project as proposed and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer will not accomplish the basic purpose of the project; and C. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to remove or accommodate such constraints. Section 13. Limited Density Transfer For residential development proposals on lands containing wetland buffers, the Planning Department shall determine allowable dwelling units based on the formula below. The maximum number of dwelling units (DU) for a lot or parcel which contains wetland buffers shall be equal to: (ACRES IN BUFFER) X (DU/ACRE) X (DENSITY CREDIT) Percentage of site in buffers Density Credit 1-10% 100% 11-20% 90% 21-30% 80% 31-40% 70% 41-50% 60% 51-60% 50% 61-70% 40% 71-80 % 30 % 81-90% 20% 91-99 % 10 % The density credit can only be transferred within the development proposal site. Density credit shall not be allowed for portions of the site occupied by wetlands. Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts A. Condition of Permit. The Director shall require that a permittee create a separate sensitive area tract containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer. Sensitive area tracts are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland buffers with perpetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain undeveloped. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they are created, are not intended for sale, lease or transfer, and shall be included in the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot size. B. Protection of Sensitive Area Tracts. The Director shall require, as a condition of any permit issued hereunder, that the sensitive area tract created pursuant to subsection E.1 above be protected by one of the following methods: 1. The permittee shall dedicate to the City or other public or non-profit entity specified by the Director, an easement for the protection of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer; or 2. The permittee shall record against the property, a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts created as a condition of the permit. Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved by the Director and the City Attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development, alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement 17 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City and any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. Section 15. Notice on Title The owner of any property with field verified presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which a wetland permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such wetland or wetland buffer against the property with the King County Department of Records and Elections. The notice shall be approved by the Director and the City Attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it deleted if the wetland designation no longer applies. Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts A. Condition of Permit. As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section 23, the Director shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or violator's actions. The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as possible the original wetlands in terms of acreage, function, geographic location and setting. B. Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation project shall be to replace the same type of wetland lost, with all associated functions and values. No net loss of wetland acreage shall be required. Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction, where possible. C. Performance Standards. Compensatory mitigation shall follow a mitigation plan which includes the components listed in Subsection E, and which is approved by the Director. All mitigation plans shall meet the following minimum performance standards: 1. Given the uncertainties in scientific knowledge and the need for expertise and monitoring, wetland compensatory projects may be permitted only when the Director finds that the compensation project is associated with an activity or development otherwise permitted and that the restored, created, or enhanced wetland will be as persistent as the wetland it replaces. Additionally, applicants shall: 2. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; a. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during this period if the project fails to meet projected goals; and b. Protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the compensation area. D. Wetlands Restoration and Creation. 1. Any person who alters wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas of wetlands than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. 2. Acreage replacement ratio. The ratio of 1.5:1 shall be the standard ratio and shall apply to creation or restoration which is in -kind, on -site, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. This ratio does not apply to 18 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations. The first number specifies the acreage of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. 3. Increased Replacement Ratio. The Director may increase the standard ratio under the following circumstances: a. High degree of uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; b. Significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; c. Projected losses in functional value and other uses, such as recreation, scientific research and education, relatively high; d. Not possible to create or restore same type of wetland; e. Off -site compensation is offered. 4. Decreased Replacement Ratio. The Director may decrease the standard ratio under the following circumstances: a. Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate that no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under the decreased ratio. b. In all cases, a minimum acreage replacement ratio of 1:1 shall be required. 5. Wetlands Enhancement. a. Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance existing significantly degraded wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses, only when on -site, in -kind, and off -site, in -kind replacement is not feasible. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands shall identify how enhancement conforms to the overall goals and requirements of the wetlands protection program and established regional goals. b. A wetlands enhancement compensation project shall be considered provided that enhancement for one function and value will not degrade another function or value. Acreage replacement ratios shall be increased to 3:1 or greater to recognize existing functional values. Wetlands of outstanding significance shall not be enhanced. 6. Wetland Type. In-ldnd compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: a. The wetland system is already significantly degraded and out -of -kind replacement will result in a wetland with greater functional value; b. Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make implementation of in -kind compensation impossible; or C. Out -of -kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (eg., replacement of historically diminished wetland types). 19 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Where out -of -kind replacement is accepted, greater acreage replacement ratios may be required to compensate for lost functional values. 7. Location. On -site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: a. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the on -site loss; and b. On -site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors; or c. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; or d. Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or e. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another site. 8. Off -site compensation shall occur within the same watershed as the wetland loss occurred, unless the applicant can demonstrate extraordinary hardship. 9. In selecting compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: a. Upland sites which were formerly wetlands; b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent vegetation; and c. Other disturbed upland. 10. Timing. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands, immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetland, and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development which was conditioned upon such compensation. Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. 11. Cooperative Restoration, Creation or Enhancement Projects (Mitigation Banks) The City encourages, and may facilitate and approve cooperative projects wherein a single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a compensation project with funding from other applicants. Any mitigation banking must be consistent with all requirements of this chapter. E. Components of Mitigation Plans. All wetland restoration, creation and/or enhancement projects required pursuant to this chapter either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland professionals approved by the Director. The applicant or violator must receive written approval of the mitigation plan by the Director prior to commencement of any wetland restoration, creation or enhancement activity. The mitigation plan shall contain at least the following components: 20 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) 1. Baseline Information. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetiand including, at a minimum, wetland delineation; existing wetland acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; soil and substrate conditions; and topographic elevations. If the compensation site is different from the impacted wetland site, baseline information should also include existing acreage; relationship within watershed and to existing waterbodies; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. 2. Environmental Goals and Objectives. A written report shall be provided identifying goals and objectives and describing: site selection criteria; compensation goals; target evaluation species and resource functions; dates for beginning and completion; and a complete description of the functions and values sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland, or if out -of -kind, the type of wetland to be emulated. The report shall also include an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland, and the long-term viability of the project, based on the experiences of comparable projects, if any. 3. Performance Standards. Specific measurable criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether the goals and objectives of the project are being achieved, and for determining when and if remedial action or contingency measures should be implemented. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. 4. Detailed Construction Plans. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation techniques shall be provided, as specified by the Director. 5. Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. 6. Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. 7. Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the Director shall become part of the application for the permit. 8. Performance Bonds and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, bonds ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measure shall be posted in the amount of one hundred twenty (125) percent of the expected cost of compensation, plus a factor to be determined to allow for inflation during the time the project is being monitored, and a ten (10) percent administration fee to reimburse the City for costs incurred during the course of the monitoring program. 9. Consultation with Other Agencies. Applicants are encouraged to consult with federal, state, local agencies and tribes having expertise or interest in a compensatory mitigation proposal. 21 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Section 17. Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards A. If an applicant for a development proposal demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that application of the standards of this ordinance would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, development as conditioned shall be allowed if the applicant also demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the Director: 1. That the proposed development is water -dependent or requires access to the wetland as a central element of its basic function, or is not water -dependent but has no practicable alternative pursuant to Section 16; 2. That no reasonable use with less impact on the wetland and its buffer is possible (e.g., agriculture, aquaculture, transfer or sale of development rights or credits, sale of open space easements, etc.); 3. That there is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed development, including reduction in density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning considerations, that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers; 4. That the proposed development will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland's functional characteristics and its existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions; 5. That disturbance of wetlands has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in wetland buffers to the extent possible; 6. That the proposed development will not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or documented priority species or priority habitats; 7. That the proposed development will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface -water quality; 8. That the proposed development complies with all state, local and federal laws, including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on -site wastewater disposal; 9. That any and all alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers will be mitigated as provided in Section 6.6. 10. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; and 11. That the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant, or the present or prior owner of the property, in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this chapter. B. Prior to granting any special exception under this section, the Director shall make written findings on each of the items listed in this subsection. As part of any special exception under this section, the applicant shall be required to take deliberate measures to minimize wetland impacts. 22 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Section 18. Non -conforming Wetland Activities A. A non -conforming wetland activity is one which was begun, and to which significant economic resources were committed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but which activity is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. A wetland permit shall be required for any non -conforming wetland activity if the Director determines that the activity has been: expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way after the adoption of this ordinance, such as to increase the extent of its nonconformity; 2. discontinued for twelve continuous months after the adoption of this ordinance, except in cases of discontinuance for normal agricultural practices; or 3. damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other natural disaster, and where the cost of restoration exceeds fifty percent of the fair market value of the activity at the time of damage. B. Activities or adjuncts thereof that either are or become nuisances are not non -conforming as defined herein and shall not be entitled to continue. Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development No construction pursuant to a wetland permit authorized by this ordinance shall begin or be authorized until all necessary permits for construction have been obtained and all review and appeal proceedings have been terminated. Section 20. Time Limits for Permit Validity. The following time requirements shall apply to all wetland permits: A. Permit authorization shall terminate within three years after approval of the permit by the Director, PROVIDED that the Director may authorize a single extension prior to the end of the time limit for up to one year based upon reasonable factors. The extension may only be granted based upon a written request from the applicant. The Director may require updated studies or additional information prior to granting the extension. B. The running of the permit time period shall not include the time during which an activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of reasonably related administrative appeals or litigation. Section 21. Revisions to Permits When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the Director shall request from the applicant detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit. The Director shall approve the permit where the Director determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit. If the proposed changes are not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the applicant shall apply for a new permit in the manner provided for in this ordinance. 23 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative A - September 1992) Section 22. Rescission or Suspension of Permits The Director may rescind or suspend a wetland permit after holding a public hearing, if any of the following conditions are found: A. The permittee has developed the site in a manner not authorized by the permit; B. The permittee has not complied with the conditions of the permit; C. The permittee has secured the permit with false or misleading information; or D. The permit was issued in error. Notice of the hearing on a proposed permit rescission shall be mailed to the permittee not less than fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing. Section 23. Enforcement Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance and the imposition of civil penalties for the violation of any requirements of this ordinance shall be as specified in Chapter 15.10, Enforcement of the Zoning Code. Section 24. Appeals. The following final decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, as set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 2.54: A. Conditioning or denial of a wetland permit; or B. Denial of a special exception under Section 17 of this ordinance. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any final discretionary decision of the Director rendered pursuant to this ordinance. Section 25. Severability The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 26. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. a:wetrev.sep 24 CITY OF KENT PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS (WEMANDS) (Alternative B - Revised March 1993) WHEREAS, wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due to flooding, erosion, soil liquefaction potential, and septic disposal limitations; and WHEREAS, in their natural state, wetlands provide many valuable social and ecological services, including controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; providing areas for groundwater recharge; preventing shoreline erosion by stabilizing the substrate; providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on wetlands for their survival, and many of which are on Washington State and Federal Endangered Species lists; providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; providing recreation opportunities; and serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education; and WHEREAS, development in wetlands may results in: increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; increased shoreline erosion; degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the streamflow regimen; loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow -release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the streamflow regimen of watersheds; loss of groundwater recharge areas; and WHEREAS, buffer areas surrounding wetlands are essential to maintenance and protection of wetland functions and values, and protect wetlands from degradation by stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful or toxic substances; moderating impacts of stormwater runoff; moderating system microclimate; protecting wetland wildlife habitat from adverse impacts; maintaining and enhancing habitat diversity and/or integrity; supporting and protecting wetlands plant and animal species and biotic communities; and reducing disturbances to wetland resources caused by intrusion of humans and domestic animals; and WHEREAS, The loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands results in a detriment to public safety and welfare; replacement of such services, if possible at all, can require considerable public expenditure; and WHEREAS, a considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, polluting, and other acts inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas, and remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent hereby finds that as a result of all of the above, it is necessary to ensure protection of wetland areas in the City by diseeufaging regulating activities in wetlands and in sites adjacent to wetlands that may adversely affect wetland functions and values, to encourage restoration and enhancement of already -degraded wetland systems and to encourage creation of new wetland areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that in order to accomplish this directive, the City shall amend the Kent Zening CJi y Code to require site planning through a permit regulatory system administered by the Planning Department, in order to avoid or minimize damage to wetlands wherever possible; to require that activities not dependent upon a wetland location be located at upland sites; and to achieve no net loss of wetland area by requiring restoration of City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) degraded former wetlands or the creation of new wetlands from upland sites to offset unavoidable losses; WHEREAS- the City wishes to protect the rights of individual12rol&M owners by ensuring that City wetland regulations do not arbitrarily or unfairly deprive them of use of their land and that the burdens of these regulations are not borne disproportionately by one group Qf citizen WHEREAS the Cily wishes to provide for review process that is timely, fair and predictable and that integrates review of wetland issues with the substantive review of development permit applications; WHEREAS the City wishes to reduce5prawl and take best advantage of existing City infrastructure by encouraging infill development both in upland areas and areas where wetland impacts can be mitigated by replacement or enhancement; WHEREAS the Cily wishes to use creative zoning techniques and other mechanisms to avoid the loss of dev lelopment rights in property and thereby minimize the adverse fiscal effect on the Cily of a loss of jobs and tax base and encourage the production of affordable housinn for all economic segments of the population; WHEREAS the City wishes to protect the environment including wetlands, in order to enhance the quality of life for City residents: NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short Title, Authority and Purpose A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Kent Wetlands Ordinance." B. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's police powers, the Growth Management Act as codified in Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in Chapter 42.21C RCW. C. The purpose of this ordinance is to: Protect the public health, safety and welfare by preserving, protecting and restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other activities within them and wedand buffers so that nuisances or threats to safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded by: a. impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage capacity, or impairing natural flood control functions, thereby resulting in increased flood heights, frequencies or velocities on other lands; b. increasing water pollution through location of domestic waste disposal systems in wetlands; unauthorized application of pesticides and herbicides; disposal of solid waste at inappropriate sites; creation of unstable fills; or the destruction of wetland soils and vegetation; C. increasing erosion; 2 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) d. decreasing breeding, nesting and feeding areas for many species of waterfowl and shorebirds, including those rare and endangered; e. interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by fish and other forms of wildlife; f. adversely altering the recharge or discharge functions of wetlands, thereby impacting groundwater or surface water supplies; 9. significantly altering wetland hydrology and thereby causing either short -or long-term changes in vegetational composition, soils characteristics, nutrient cycling, or water chemistry; h. destroying sites needed for education and scientific research, such as outdoor biophysical laboratories, living classrooms, and training areas; i. interfering with public rights in navigable waters and the recreation opportunities provided by wetlands for fishing, boating, hildng, bird watching, photography and other passive uses; or j. destroying or damaging aesthetic and property values, including significant public viewsheds. 2. Protect, to the greatest extent practicable, the public against losses from unnecessary maintenance and replacement of public facilities and expenses for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and 3. Alert appraisers, assessors, owners and potential buyers or lessees of property to the development limitations of wetlands. D. The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. 3 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Section 2: Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Activity." See "Regulated Activity" and "Allowed Activity" as defined in Section 2 herein. Adi cent wetland" means those wetlands bordering contiguous or neighboring a rimer stream or lake. "Applicant" means a person who files an application for development $em4 wider his ehapteF and who is either the owner of the land on which that proposed Regulated Activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would actually control and direct the proposed Regulated Activity, or the authorized agent of such a person. "Best management practices" means conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxics, and sediment; and 2. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands. "City" means the City of Kent, Washington "Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project -induced wetland and wetland buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring and contingency actions. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced wetland losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Restoration. Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. Creation. Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement. Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degfaded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. "Dedication" means conveyance of land to the City or other not -for -profit entity by deed or other instrument of conveyance. "Department" means the Planning Department of the City of Kent. "Developable area" means land outside of wetlands, wetland buffers or any other restricted area on a particular piece of property. "Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure or use; a$y or changes in the use of land that require a development permit from the City or would otherwise alter or adversely affect a wetland or wetland buffer. 4 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) "Director" means the Director of the Kent Planning Department or his/her authorized designee. "Emergent wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. "Enhancement." See "Compensatory Mitigation." "Erosion" means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of mass wasting or the movement of wind, water, soil and/or ice. "Essential habitat" means habitat necessary for the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered and sensitive species and state listed priority species. "Exotic" means any species of plants or animals that are foreign to the planning area. "Existing and ongoing agriculture" includes those activities conducted on lands defined as "Farm and Agricultural Land" in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops or livestock, for example, the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, operation and maintenance of ditches, irrigation systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage ditches, changes between agricultural activities, and normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than eight years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity iS maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Forest practices are not included in this definition. "Extraordinary hardship" means that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance and/or rules adopted to implement this ordinance would prevent all reasonable economic use of the property. "Federal Manual" means Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, dated January 1987. "Forested wetland" means a wetland with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height. "Functions," "beneficial functions," or "functions and values" means the beneficial roles served by wetlands including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority. "Grading" means excavation or fill or any combination thereof, including the establishment of a grade following the demolition of a structure. "Growing season" means the average frost -free period of the year in Kent as recorded in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Frost/Freeze Data from Climatology of the U.S. #20, supplement #1, or in equivalent U.S. government agency records. Growing season, for the purposes of these regulations, may be considered to be the period from March 1 through October 31 of any calendar year. E City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) "Hydric Soil" means soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual. "Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual. "In -kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands that have characteristics which closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a Regulated Activity. "Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands which: Are outside of and not contiguous to any 100 year fieedplain ef lake, river, or stream; and 2. Have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. "Maintenance," see definition of "Repair and Maintenance." "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. Mitigation, in the following order of preference is: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of _ an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; 6. Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation may include a combination of the above measures. "Mitigation Banking" is the collective offsite creation, restoration or enhancement of uplands, or in some instances, existing wetlands, to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts due to private development, public works projects, and other construction activities. Banking differs from most offsite compensatory mitigation projects in that mitigation banking is a program created by agencies or organizations to provide a relatively large mitigation site which will be used to compensate for many (usually unrelated) development projects; more traditional compensatory mitigation measures are typically individual projects which may give little consideration to regional wetlands management. R City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) "Native Vegetation" means plant species which are indigenous to the planning area. "Offsite compensation" means to replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. "On -site compensation" means to replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. "Out -of -kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. "Owner" means any person having title to, a substantial beneficial interest in, or control of a building or property, including but not limited to a lessee, guardian, receiver or trustee, and the owner's duly authorized agent. "Person" means a natural person, his/her heirs, executors, administrators or assignees, or a firm, partnership or corporation and its or their successors and assignees, or a governmental entity. "Pollution" means such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of wetlands, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into wetlands as will or is likely to cause a nuisance or render such wetlands harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wildlife, fish, native vegetation or other aquatic life. "Practicable alternative" means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less impacts to wetlands. It may involve using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to accomplish the project. "Priority habitats" are a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration. "Priority species" are those species identified by the Washington State Department of Wildlife as a Priority Spgdes "Repair or maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter additional wetlands are not included in this definition. "Restoration." See "Compensatory Mitigation." "Scrub -shrub wetland" means a wetland with at least 30 percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata. 7 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Sensitive Area Tract" means a separate tract that is created to protect the sensitive area and its buffer and whose ownership is assured as provided in Section of this Chanter. "Serviceable" means presently useable. "Site" means any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, where activities are proposed, performed or permitted. "Subject property" means the site where an activity requiring a permit or approval under this ordinance will occur. "Unavoidable and necessary impacts" are impacts to wetlands that remain after an applicant has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for the proposed project. "Water -dependent" means requiring the use of surface water that would be essential to fulfill the purpose of the proposed project. "Wetlands," means all those areas in the City of Kent that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions during the growing season. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving that the site was not previously a wetland. Wetlands include artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas for the purpose of mitigating conversion of wetlands. For identifying and delineating a wetland, the City of Kent shall rely on the methodology contained in the Federal Manual as defined above. "Wetlands of Outstanding Significance," means all wetlands with-. wetland sites md F , ineluding sphagnufn begs and Fes.estuarine wetlands, atu e wetlands designated as Undue and Fragile Rursuant to Section 15 08 260 of the Kent Zoning Code adopted by Ord./Res. and mapped on the Citv's Hazard Area Development Limitations Map except for the Kent Sewage Lagoon. "Wetland buffer" or "wetland buffer zone" is an area that surrounds and protects a wetland from adverse impacts to the functions and values of a wetland. City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) "Wetland classes," "classes of wetlands" or "wetland types" means the wetland classes or subclasses of the wetlands taxonomic classification system described in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et al., 1979). "Wedends—permit" faeans any peffnit, edi fl ati a ed "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions in this ordinance and the procedures specified in Section 4 herein. Section 3: General Provisions. A. Applicability. The requirements of this ordinance apply to all activities and development occurring in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in Section 2 herein. Property located in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in this ordinance is subject to both its zoning classification regulations and to the additional requirements imposed under this ordinance. In any case where there are irreconcilable differences between the provisions of the underlying zone and this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply. B. Protection of General Public. It is expressly the purpose of this ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by the terms of this ordinance. C. Compliance by Owners. It is the specific intent of this ordinance to place the obligation " of complying with its requirements upon the owner of the property or land within its scope, and no provision of, nor any term used in this ordinance is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City, its officers, officials or employees. D. Right of Entry. Upon presentation of the proper credentials, the Director or the Director's duly authorized representative may, with the consent of the owner or occupier of land, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter at reasonable times, any land subject to such consent or warrant, to perform the duties imposed by this ordinance. E. Liability. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for liability on the part of the City, or its officers, officials, employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any owner of property or land to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any inspection, notice order, certificate, permission or approval authorized or issued in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this ordinance, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any manner to the enforcement of this ordinance by its officers, officials, employees or agents. F. Enforcement Authority; Rules. Administrative Procedures 1. Enforcement. The Director is hereby designated the City Official to exercise the powers granted by this ordinance. 2. Rules. Administrative Procedures. Within 30 days from the adoption of this ordinance. the Director shall initiat is autherized to adept, in aeeefdmee with administrative procedures necessary to implertlen cam out the requirements of this ordinance hereti;VGT 7 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Section 4: Lands to Which this Chapter Applies A. Geographic Scope. The boundaries within which this ordinance shall be effective are coextensive with the corporate City limits, and shall include all unincorporated areas annexed to the City on and after the effective date of this ordinance. B. Determination of Wetland Boundary by Delineation. The exact location of the wedand boundary shall be determined by--the-epplieent through the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition provided in Section 2 of this ordinance by Qaafi€red professionals she4l pefferfn wet4and deHneetiens using the Federal Manual. ,kiternatis-ely, the An applicant may request the Department to perform the delineation, provided the applicant pr-evides pUa the Department with -the for all necessary €iiadin exl& nses associated with performing the delineation. The Department shall consult with qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed to perform the delineation. R e-egpheartt Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland boundary, the Department shall verify the accuracy of, and may render adjustments to, the boundary delineation.; The decision of the Department may only b�pSaled p1irsuant to K C C fsepa ordinancel or Section of the Kent Zonine Code. C. Preapplication Delineation Property owners or their agents may obtain a non-bindine opinion regarding a wetland delineation prior to submittal of any development Permit =lication. D. Time Limits for Delineation A wetland delineation which has been confirmed by the Department pursuant to SEPA review shall be binding upon the City and the applicant for one year from the date of issuance of the threshold determination If a complete application for a building pgrmit or subdivision involving the same wetland is filed within one year of the issuance of the threshold determination the delineation shall be binding upon the City and the applicant while the permit or subdivision application is active. Section 5. Wetlands Rating System A. The following rating system is hereby adopted for the purpose of determining the size of wetland buffers and otherwise reviewing permits under this ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al., 1979) contains the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses. 1. Category 1 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: a. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, or other species identified by the Gity of Kent as needing speeial pfeteetie , state Department of Natural Resources through its Natural Heritage data or by the state Department of Wildlife as a Priority Species. or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; 10 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) b. Wetlands equal to or greater than two acres in size having 40% to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; C. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten acres in size and having three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water; or d. The presence of bogs or fens. of e. Wetlands which have bg&Lijesi2nated Unique and Fragile under the Kent Zoning ; Qde Section 15.08.260 and mgpMdd on the City s Offi ial Hazy Area DeveloomPnt Limitations Man. 2. Category 2 Wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following criteria, and which are not Category 1 wetlands: a. Wetlands greater than one acre in size; b. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; C. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested wetland class; d. The documented presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting {fees sites. 3. Category 3 Wetlands. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes, and which are not Category 1 or Category 2 wetlands. C. In order to obtain a permit to conduct regulated activities in a wetland of outstanding significance, an applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that application of the standards contained in this ordinance would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. D. Exeept in the ease of wetlands ef eutstmdi ftg-a*fttfieww&,-pegula�aRew�ed-aetivities squere Section 6.V.etjftnd p ""'� De�`�"^"'� , Regulated Activities A. No regulated activity, other than maintenance and upkeep [note: committee recommends that "maintenance and upkeep" be changed to "repair and maintenance," which is a defined term] of their property by ewnef-eeeugiefs owner or occupant of 10,000 square feet or less of isolated Category 2 or Category 3 wetlands, shall be undertaken in a wetland or wetland buffer without first obtaining alvetlands-pefrnit Mroval from the Director }ursuanr to Section 10. Regulated activities are any of the following activities which occur in a wetland or its buffer: 11 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind; 2. The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material; 3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table; 4. The driving of pilings; 5. The placing of obstructions; 6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; 7. The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice exclusively governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or 8. Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants;__Qr The r n og" f utility facilities utility systems and essential public infrastructure. B. Where a regulated activity is proposed which would be partly within and partly without the wetland or wetland buffer, a wedand-pefmit approval shall be required for the entire regulated activity. The standards of this ordinance shall apply only to that part of the regulated activity which occurs within the wetland or wetland buffer unless the underlying zoning requires that the entire regulated activity comply with all or part of this ordinance. C. The Kent iLaMns shall be subject to this ordinance with the exception of those activities allowed by Resolution 1i adopted by the Kent City Council on ldatel and by the Plan !need official title and datel adopted pursuant to Resolution # Section 7. Allowed Activities. A. . The following activities shall be allowed within a wetland or wetland buffer without a -wet pe� prior approval from the Director to the extent that they are not prohibited by other local, state (forest practices and conversions shall be governed by Chapter 76.09 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder) or federal law and provided that they are conducted using best management practices. This pefxit exemption does not apply where such activities result in the conversion of a wetland or wetland buffer to a use to which it was not previously subjected. 1. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife; 2. Outdoor recreational activities, including fishing, bird watching, hiking, boating, horseback riding, swimming, canoeing, and bicycling; 3. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions or water sources; 12 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) 4. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities; 5. The repair and maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches; 6. Educational activities, scientific research, and use of nature trails; 7. The placement of navigation aids and boundary markers; 8. The placement of boat mooring buoys; 9. Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case, wetland impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; B. Notice required. The following activities and uses are allowed within wetlands and wetland buffers provided that written notice at least ten days prior to the commencement of such work has been given to the Director with such exemptions as noted in Section 6.A and provided that wetland impacts are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored: 1. Normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas, such as public and private infrastructure improvements. utility facilities and utility systems. Maintenance and repair does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original structure, facility, or improved area and does not include the construction of a maintenance road; and 2. Minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions. Section S. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit-Apgrgy-41 A. Criteria for Granting a Temporary Emergency Permif-A r v . Notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance or any other laws to the contrary, the Director may issue a temporary emergency wetlands per-ffiit approval if: The Director determines that an imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment will occur if an emergency perff& approval is not granted; and 2. The threat or loss may occur before a- wetlands permit =roval can be issued or modified under the procedures otherwise required by this ordinance. B. Conditions of Emergency Perffli Approval. Any emergency permit approv granted shall: Incorporate to the greatest extent practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the standards and criteria required for non -emergency activities; 2. Be limited in duration to the time required to complete the authorized emergency activity, not to exceed ninety (90) days; and 13 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) 3. Require the restoration of any wetland altered as a result of the emergency activity within the ninety -day period. If restoration is not completed within ninety days, ant)roval must be obtained in accordance with this chapter. C. Emergency Utility Repairs. Emergency repairs to utilities that require immediate attention and which would endanger the public if a temporary emergency permit were required shall be allowed for a period not exceeding 72 hours. Section 9. Prohibited Activities. Activities not specifically described by this ordinance as Allowed or Regulated, and which do not constitute Emergency Activities under Section 8 or Non -conforming Activities under Section 18 are prohibited. In order to conduct an otherwise prohibited activity in a wetland or wetland buffer, the applicant must satisfy the requirements for a special exception, as described in Section 17. Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures. A. Inconsistent Development Prohibited. No activity or development shall be undertaken and no use shall be established in a wetland or a wetland buffer unless the Director has determined that it is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. B. Standards. A wetlands-p� regulated activity in a wetland or wetland buffer shall only be gfcted =roved if the proposed regulated activity, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, all other applicable laws and: 1. The proposed regulated activity avoids adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers; or the applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impacts of the regulated activity are both unavoidable and necessary, as described in Section 12 and affirmative and appropriate measures are proposed as conditions which will minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and 2. The proposed regulated activity results in no net loss of wetland area; or 3. Refusal to gFm*-a—permA approve the activity would deny the applicant all reasonable economic use of the subject property. C. Procedures. 1. The burden of proving that an allowed or regulated activity meets the applicable standards €er-a-permit of this ordinance shall be on the applicant. 2. The applicant may be required to submit information or data, in addition to that routinely required with permit development applications, sufficient to enable the Director to evaluate the proposed Activity or to prepare any necessary environmental documents. 3. In addition to other requirements provided in this ordinance, the Director may attach to the a develoRment permit any conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance and all other applicable laws. Perferfaafte ,.,...a" and c cpnditiens. 4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Director's authority to condition or deny a project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. (Add new language to SEPA ordinance: Compliance with the provisions of Ord. 14 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Ciri of Kol Wetlands Ordinance shalt b. deemed to constitute adeouate "gym= to wetlands for actions that are subiect to Ord. ,.WJM the R posible Official demonstrate¢ that additional mttigatiet measures are ��udred in order to ensure that the eons of this chanter are meS ] 5. The Department shall, to the extent practicable and feasible, consolidate the processing of wetlands -related aspects of other City regulatory programs which affect activities in wetlands, such as subdivision, clearing and grading, floodplain, hazard area regulations. , etc., with the Wetland Per -Writ Approval process established herein so as to provide a timely and coordinated permit process. Where an activity regulated under this chapter also requires a Section 404 hermit from the federal Army Corns of Engineers the Department shall to the extent practicable and feasible coordinate the Citv's approval process with the _fe eral approval process to avoid duplication while ensuring that all standards in thi chapter are met. D. Application Requirements. Ap li n for approval of activities in wetlands shall be in accordance with the administrative pro cedures to be established by the Director under Subsection 3.F.2. Section 11. Wetland Buffers and Building Setback Lines A. Standard Buffer Zone Widths Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of Section 4. The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland in accordance with Section 5. [Amendment to landscape code]: Enhanced wetland buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where the City determines that the buffer as enhanced by the applicant will provide greater protection of wetland functions and will serve the same function as landscaping that 15 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) would otherwise be required pursuant to K.C.C. Approved landming vegetation must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements. 1. For Glass CateROEY I wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 100 feet. 2. For Class Categoa 2 and-3 wetlands, the fainifou standard buffer zone shall be 50 feet. , , iseiated Glass 3 -wetlands of !Q,GW square shall have a fni- rr zene of M rest. 3. For Category 3 wetlands the standard buffer zone shall be 25 feet. B. Building Setback Lines A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer- B.C. Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Width The City may require increased buffer zone widths on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on local conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must demonstrate that: A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of existing species; or 2. The wetland is used by species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; 3. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or 4. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 15 percent. I ' h 1 1. 15 � . �Iel ...1 T j.1 1 Th dis r^ diseevefed-e md 16 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) D. Standard Buffer Width Averaging Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taldng into account the type, intensity, scale and landscape location of the proposed land use; 2. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics which justify the averaging; 3. where buffer width is r pefpetuity by eeyenmt, deed r-estfietiefi, easement, er- other legeRy binding, meel&9i9fn; The proposal minimizes disturbances caused by land uses in areas adjacent to any buffers which are reduced. 4. Width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values; 5. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet. E. Except as otherwise specified, wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. F. Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone. Regulated activities shall not be allowed in a buffer zone except for the following: 1. Activities and maintenance having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands. These may include but are not limited to low intensity, passive recreational activities such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing. 2. Stormwater management facilities if designed according to the Draft Guide" fer Wetlands and Stermwater Management (published by the Puget Setin Water- Reseefees Management, University ef Washington (206 :782 :7401), and i no reasonable elternatiYe on site leeatien is available; and the guidelines for natural wetlands and stormwater management contained in the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (Technical Manual). 3. Biofiltration swales, if sited and designed so that the buffer zone as a whole provides the necessary biological, chemical and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taldng into account the type, location, intensity, scale and landscape location of the proposed land use. 17 City of Kent proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Section 12. Avoiding Wetland Impacts A. Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a wetland except where it can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary as described below, or that all reasonable economic uses are denied. B. Except for wetlands described in subsection 12 C and 12.1) below, the foil win provisions shall apply: 1. For water -dependent activities, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be demonstrated where there are no practicable alternatives which would not involve a wetland or which would not have less adverse impact an a wetland, and would not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Stormwater management facilities will be considered in wetlands subject to review under the wetlands and stormwater management guidelines referenced in Section 1.F.2, and all other applicable provisions in this chapter, except that under no circumstances will such facilities be permitted in wetlands of outstanding significance. 2. Where nonwater-dependent activities are proposed, the applicant must demonstrate that: a. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant and may feasibly be used to accomplish the project. b. A reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project as proposed and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer will not accomplish the basic purpose of the project; and C. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to remove or accommodate such constraints. With rupert to isolated CategQry 3 wetlands and isolated Category 2 wetlands which are not CategQU 3 wetlands only because tgy exceed one acre to size the followm¢ apples. Re2ulated activities which result in the filling of no more than 10.000 square feet of a Wetland may be permitted if mitigation is provided consistent with the standards of Section 16. In computing the total allowable wetland fill area under this subsection the Director shall include any areas that have been filled since Janu raa 1 1991 For example if 5,000 square feet of a wetland were filled in February, 1991 future applicants would only be allowed a maximum of 5,000 additional sgpare feet under this subsection Any proposed fill over 10,000 square feet must demonstrate unavoidable and necessary impacts as described in Subsection 12.13 above. D. Fills of wetlands described in subsection 12 C which are less than or edual to 2000 square feet and which are necessary as part of the development of a single family residence, may 18 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) be mitigated for with fees in lieu of mitigation provided the fees are directed toward an e isting_migg; Lion hank which is owned and operated by the itv Section 13. Limited Density Transfer For residential development proposals on lands containing wetland buffers, the Planning Department shall determine allowable dwelling units based on the formula below. The maximum number of dwelling units (DU) for a lot or parcel which contains wetland buffers shall be equal to: (ACRES IN BUFFER) X (DU/ACRE) X (DENSITY CREDIT) Percentage of site in buffers Density Credit 1-40*NYo 100% n, ,20% nn % z 21- 39440. 80% 34 4n% ten% 41% 6090 ci nm cn m_ �z 61384 NY-o 40% ?4 80 30% 81 -99100% 20 % 9i i00O10 'i0% Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts A. Condition of PermiEA=roy . As a condition of approval pursuant to this Chanter. The Director shall require that a permittee ereate creation of a separate sensitive area tract containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer. Sensitive area tracts are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland buffers with perpetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain undeveloped. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they are created, are not intended for sale, lease or transfer, and shall be included in the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot size. B. Protection of Sensitive Area Tracts. The Director shall require -, --a_ ""-'°'`'^ ^£'a that the sensitive area tract created pursuant to subsection 14.A above be protected by one of the following methods: 1. The permit tee applicant shall dedicate to the City or other public or non-profit entity specified by the Director, an easement for the protection of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer; or 2. The per»3ittce applicant shall record against the property, a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts created as a condition of approval, the peraii . Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved by the Director and the City Attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development, alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City and any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. Section 15. Notice on Title The owner of any property with field verified presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which a wetland permit application is submitted shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice 19 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) of the existence of such wetland or wetland buffer against the property with the King County Department of Records and Elections. The notice shall be approved by the Director and the City Attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it deleted if the wetland designation no longer applies. Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts. A. Condition of wit A rov . As a condition of any pefflik auoroval allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section _, the Director shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's or violator's actions. The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as pessible practicable the original wetlands in terms of acreage, function, geographic location and setting. B. Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation project shall be to replace the same type of wetland lost, with all associated functions and values. No net loss of wetland acreage shall be required. Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction, where pessible practicatle. C. Performance Standards. Compensatory mitigation shall follow a mitigation plan which includes the components listed in Section _, and which is approved by the Director. All mitigation plans shall meet the following minimum performance standards: Given the uncertainties in scientific knowledge and the need for expertise and monitoring, wetland compensatory projects may be permitted only when the Director finds that the compensation project is associated with an activity or development otherwise permitted and that the restored, created or enhanced wetland will be as persistent as the wetland it replaces. Additionally, applicants shall: a. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; b. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during this period if the project fails to meet projected goals; and c. Protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the compensation area. Y M. :1�Jn it1•lfll•111 - Y • • • • • -.. • • Y _ MINN— 2{'1L11P �1fI_Sf l•Lll i/.[!111> � it%!L91'1'S11lJZL1•2fllfll'SS!C��2f• 7t%SS1 20 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) J a'l.\ �! 111`tl„Lftl7����R i4' 1l`Tl!ti!!1!tif`�`L1• flf'�111!• I �11111!117111\1tl'a'I ��fa1 C1111f _ 21 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) �wi2l�'.S]s`4f � i�••ylllfl i �liClfsSfll�� • i�Sf �11�1Sltls�i 22 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) A maps of the impaete Baseline R&fmafiea. wfitten assessment and weempanying aereagee, eat a miniratifa, welland eexisting wedand Yegetatiye, fftned and ie soil and subs"te eendifiefts 1 buffers; and a e (ship FM Mr. _ - Y _ _ Y 3 n e e... d _a, Speei e. fable a fites 1d if fn .1:..1 ,.etien a e_.tingeney measures sheuld be_implemented. Seeh p or ether eeel 23 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas. Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) be taken when Ffiefl-..� g Peffffmanee Bends d Demenstrsfien of Gempetenee A defaenstfatien ef`"""""t , edminisLrwden fee to feimberse theGitj f t +i . fziV during -the -eearse-ef 1e-menke.-in i� fp&igatien pr-epesal� Section 17. Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards A. If an applicant for a development proposal demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that application of the standards of this ordinance would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, development as conditioned shall be allowed if the applicant also demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the Director: 1. That the proposed development is water -dependent or requires access to the wetland as a central element of its basic function, or is not water -dependent but has no practicable alternative pursuant to Section _; 2. That no reasonable use with less impact on the wetland and its buffer is possible {e:g.; 3. That there is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed development, including reduction in density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning considerations, that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers; 4. That the proposed development will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland's functional characteristics and its existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions; 24 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) 5. That disturbance of wetlands has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in wetland buffers to the extent possible; 6. That the proposed development will not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or documented priority species or priority habitats; 7. That the proposed development will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface -water quality; 8. That the proposed development complies with all state, local and federal laws, including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on -site wastewater disposal; 9. That any and all alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers will be mitigated as provided in Section 6.6. 10. That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; and 11. That the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant, or the present or prior owner of the property, in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this chapter. B. Prior to granting any special exception under this section, the Director shall make written findings on each of the items listed in this subsection. As part of any special exception under this section, the applicant shall be required to take deliberate measures to minimize wetland impacts. Section 18. Non -conforming Wetland Activities A. A non -conforming wetland activity (including usgs and structures) is one which was lawful when begun, but which activity is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. if the Direeter determines that the aetWity has been! A non -conforming activity or use may be continued without the necessity f conformance to the provisions of this ordinance only so long as the activity or use is not: 1. expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way. after the adoption of this ordinance, such as to increase the extent of its nonconformity; 2. discontinued for twelve continuous months after the adoption of this ordinance, except in cases of discontinuance for normal agricultural practices; or 3. damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other natural disaster, and where the cost of restoration exceeds fifty percent of the fair market value of the activity at the time of damage. as defined herein and shall not be entitled to eefifinue.- 25 City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development No construction pursumt te a wedand permi authorized by this ordinance shall begin or be authorized until all necessary permits for construction have been obtained and all review and appeal proceedings have been terminated. than fifteeft days prier- fe the date ef the hewing — Section 33 20. Enforcement Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance and the imposition of civil penalties for the violation of any requirements of this ordinance shall be as specified in Chapter _, Enforcement of the Zoning Code. K City of Kent Proposed Critical Areas Regulations (Wetlands) (Alternative B March 1993) Section 24 21. Appeals. The following final decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, as set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 2.54: A. Conditioning or denial of a wedand development permit on the basic of the provisions of this Chapter; or B. Denial of a special exception under Section _ of this ordinance. The Directors delineation decision may be appealed according to the procedures set out in K C C fSEPA appealsl or the ap W procedure set out in (zoning codel. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any final discretionary decision of the Director rendered pursuant to this ordinance. Section 35 22. Severability The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 26 23. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. a:critarea.493 27 THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT HAD A MEETING SINCE MARCH 81 1993; THEREFORE, THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED. FOR INFORMATION ONLY KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 8, 1993 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:00 pm on March 8, 1993 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Kenneth Dozier Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Christopher Grant PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Chris Holden, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 22 1993 MINUTES MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept the February 22, 1993 minutes as presented. MOTION CARRIED. CRITICAL AREAS #CPA 91-1 AND #ZCA-91-3 (continuation of hearing from February 22, 1993. Chair Martinez briefly reviewed the hearing of February 22, 1993. Commissioner Morrill mentioned that his motion of February 22, 1993 was to go through the subcommittee's document and vote on it section by section. He felt it was a duplication of effort after having voted on the document section by section to vote on it in its entirety. Chair Martinez explained it was her understanding that after voting for each section, the Commission would then have an opportunity to look at the entire document and approve it to go to City Council. E1 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1992 Commissioner Haylor understood that there were two documents still being considered; the original wetland document (September 1992) and the subcommittee document (January 1993) now under consideration. Chair Martinez stated Section 12 is now under consideration. MOTION made and SECONDED that Version B be approved as written. A request was made for an explanation of the subcommittee's draft. Commissioner Heineman briefly summarized the major points of Section 12. Both A and B recognize low -quality wetlands which would be classified as Category 3 except they are larger than one acre in size. Version A would allow filling, with mitigation, of up to 10,000 square feet including any fill that has been placed since January 11 1991. It also allows fill of up to 2,000 square feet before development of a single family residence with mitigation by fee if a City of Kent mitigation bank exists. Version B would allow up to 20,000 square feet of fill with mitigation which does not include any previous fill. In addition, it would need to be demonstrated that the basic purpose of the project cannot be accomplished with less adverse impact AND a Department of Ecology Water Quality Certificate allowing filling from 20,000 square feet to 1.99 acres with mitigation. Commissioner Heineman commented he preferred the smaller fill. However, he is opposed to the allowing of fill of up to almost two acres. In addition, the part of Version B showing, "upon demonstration that the basic purpose of the project cannot be accomplished with less adverse impact," does not make sense, because any project could show that. Therefore, he was opposed to Version B. MOTION DEFEATED, four to three. MOTION made and SECONDED to approve Version A as written. MOTION CARRIED. Two abstentions. Commissioner Heineman commented that Section 13, the committee had felt it was appropriate to simplify the percentage formulas and adjusted the density credit accordingly. MOTION made and SECONDED to approve Section 13 as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION made and SECONDED to approve Section 14 as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1992 MOTION made and SECONDED to approve Section 15 as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION made and SECONDED to approve Section 16 as submitted. MOTION AMENDED to approve Section 16, A, B and C only. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION made and SECONDED to approve the rest of Section 16 as submitted. A request for explanation of Section 16 D was made. Commissioner Heineman briefly explained the intent of the ratios. He expounded that giving the different combinations would allow more flexibility and combinations in the creation of wetlands for different sites. Furthermore, the developer would have an option in creating the combination. Chair Martinez thought that Category 1 wetlands could not be altered. Commissioner Heineman replied that was correct. The 3:1 refers to the enhancement of existing wetlands of lower quality; two's and three's. Chair Martinez stated that the draft says, "...compensation for alteration of Category 1 wetlands shall be accomplished as follows:...". She repeated that she thought that Category 1 could not be altered. Commissioner Heineman commented that it was probably an error. He believed that it does say elsewhere that Category I wetlands shall not be altered. Chair Martinez commented she would be adamantly opposed to any alteration of Category 1 wetland as shown in Section D. a. 1 through 3. Mr. Satterstrom commented it was his understanding that this section was placed in the ordinance in case Category 1 wetlands were allowed to be altered. It was pointed out there was only one Category 1 wetland in the Kent area and that was the Lagoons. Furthermore, the Ordinance does allow the filling of Type 1 wetlands but it would be very difficult. Version A, which was just adopted, states, "regulated activities shall not be authorized in a wetland except as can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary", as well as listing other criteria that must be met. In the event that 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1992 someone did complete the requirements, the ratios in this section would be used. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to Table Section 16 D. MOTION TO TABLE IS DEFEATED. MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE REST OF SECTION 16 FAILS FOR LACK OF MAJORITY. THREE FOR/THREE AGAINST/ONE ABSTENTION MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept Section 17 as it appears. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept Section 18 with Section B stricken. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept Section 19 as it appears. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept the recommended deletion of Sections 20, 21 and 22 AND accept Section 23 which will be renumbered to Section 20 as it appears. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept Section 24 to be renumbered as Section 21 as it appears. A friendly amendment to Section B of 24, was made to read, the Director's delineation decision MAY be appealed. MOTION CARRIES WITH AMENDMENT. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept new Section 22 as it appears. MOTION CARRIES. MADE and SECONDED to accept new Section 23, Effective Date, as it appears. MOTION CARRIES. Chair Martinez commented the document that has been approved by the Planning Commission has no mitigation and very little direction given to the Planning Department. A motion is needed to accept this document. Commissioner Dahle made a MOTION to make no decision and submit both drafts to the City Council. Motion SECONDED. MOTION DEFEATED. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to consider the second part of Section 16 D that was defeated. MOTION WITHDRAWN. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept draft document as revised in it's entirety as voted on section by section. MOTION CARRIED. 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 1992 MOTION MADE and SECONDED to have original document (September 1992) be submitted to the City Council for consideration. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ward asked that a resolution go to City Council with the history of the wetland drafts. MOTION MADE and SECONDED to have a resolution sent to the City Council to give the history of the wetland regulations drafts. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE and SECONDED TO CLOSE THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jam s P. Harris, Secretary pca:pcmin3.8 5 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 1993 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called.to order by Chair Martinez at 7:00 pm on February 22, 1993 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Kenneth Dozier Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Christopher Grant PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Chris Holden, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JANUARY 25 1993 MINUTES The MOTION was made to accept the January 25, 1993 minutes as presented. The motion was SECONDED. Motion CARRIED. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE #CPA-93-1 Fred Satterstrom, Kent Planning Department, explained the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request. Mr. Satterstrom displayed view foils depicting 1) the Comprehensive Plan Map zoning for the area and 2) the actual zoning in the area. Mr. Satterstrom further explained that the requested amendment area is also in the single family zoning overlay. The widening of the street to accommodate increased traffic volumes affected the properties also. The City staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan Map be amended from single family to office and that the single-family designated overlay zone be eliminated for these properties. Mr. Rob Hamlin, Vice -President of the Masonic Hall Association and Mr. James Keck, applicant, supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 MOTION made to close the public hearing. The motion Was SECONDED and APPROVED. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from single family to office and that the single-family designated overlay zoned be eliminated for these properties. MOTION was SECONDED AND APPROVED. Chairman Martinez informed Mr. Keck that this Comprehensive Plan Map amendment would be presented to the City Council on March 23 for their consideration. CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS #CPA-91-1 AND #ZCA-91-3 Chair Martinez briefly reviewed the background of the critical areas ordinance. Chair Martinez commented the sub -committee's proposal would be considered this evening. She requested a report from City staff. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, succinctly explained the need for a timely but well -considered ordinance. Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, stated the City is mandated under the Growth Management Act to have a wetland ordinance. Failure to comply with the Growth Management Act requirements could cause mandated serious penalties to occur if determined by the Growth Planning Hearings Board that the City has violated the Growth Management Act. The Act stated that on or before September 11 1991, each City must designate and develop regulations that protect critical areas which includes wetlands. An extension was granted to March 1992. The State can determine to withhold any one or more of the following state revenues: the motor vehicle fuel tax, the transportation improvement account, the urban arterial trust account, the rural arterial trust account, the sales and use tax," the liquor profit tax and the liquor excise tax. Theoretically, our violation of the Growth Management Act could subject the City to the loss of its revenue from any one or all of those taxes. The RCW on extension states, the Department of Ecology may extend the date by which the City's is required to designate critical areas including wetlands or the date by which the City's required to protect such wetlands, if the City demonstrates its proceeding in an orderly fashion and is making a good faith effort to meet these requirements. An extension may be up for to an additional 180 days. The length of the extension shall be based on the difficulty of the effort to conform with these requirements. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 In terms of other authority, under the Shoreline Management Act, it regulates shorelines and associated wetlands and that Act has determined that all wetlands on the Green River Valley Floor have been designated associated wetlands. The King County Planning Policies that have been recently adopted encourage and in some instances, require wetland delineation and require consistency from local to county levels. Lastly, the City has received grant funding from the Department of Ecology Coastal Zoning Management funding source and there is.an implied aspect of those contracts that the funds were granted so that we would adopted wetland regulations. Commissioner Heineman chaired the wetlands subcommittee. He briefly stated the draft shows all the changes and deletions made to the Planning Commission draft ordinance. Commissioner Heineman succinctly described some of the changes in the draft ordinance. Chair Martinez requested public comment. Bruce Harpham, Rainier Chapter concerns about the decline in proposal should be kept. of the Audobon Society, expressed wetlands and felt the original Gary Volchok, 1320 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, 98101, briefly talked about the loss of buildable acreage and revenue by adopting a strict wetland policy. Mr. Volchok commented he didn't agree entirely with either document. He remarked he would use his verbal aspects with the Council. Commissioner Haley asked Mr. Volchok if he knew about the Chamber's plans to submit a draft document to the Council. Commissioner Haley stated that the time to request changes or comments should have been at the time the original document was before the Commission prior to being recommended to the City Council. Mr. Volchok commented exception was taken to the final draft from the Commissioners and, thus, the Chambers did their own draft. Jack Nelson, 601 W. Gowe, recommended that on page 12, Section 6, Subsection A, that repair and maintenance definition be used in place of maintenance and upkeep. In addition, on the same page, it should be owner or occupant rather than owner occupier. Further, he suggested, on page 13, section 71 under Allowed Activities, Section B, Subsection 1, that the underlined language be stricken. Rita Bailey, 20607 101st Avenue SE, was in favor in retaining version A of Section 12 in the Critical Areas regulation. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 Sharon Rodman, 14138 SE 238th, commented she is a professional biologist and served for a short time on the Commission's subcommittee regarding the critical areas. Ms. Rodman read into the record a commentary regarding the need for firm critical areas regulations. Michael Williams, Professional Planetacologist, commented on the need for natural wetlands. Mr. Williams mentioned that with the loss of natural wetlands, the taxpayers will be needing to pay more and more for clean water. He felt that developers were heavily against the original document and, furthermore, were not interested in creating a viable wetland ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that he attended some of the subcommittee's meetings; however, when it became clear that some of the members of the committee did not feel that scientific input was desired, he resigned in protest and submitted a letter with Sharon Rodman. Mr. Williams mentioned that he had tried to present a Department of Ecology document that was recently published relating to buffers and replacement ratios for wetlands and some of the committee members were very unreceptive to it. In addition there was quite a bit of hostility in the committee towards the scientific community. Steve Babbitt, 945 E. Maple Street, commented that EPA agreed that the use of the 1987 manual should be used. He commented he would like to know how many acres are available in Kent and in what development class. However, he felt property owners should be given some monetary value for wetlands. Mr. Babbitt felt the original Commission document should be kept. Paula Gilmore, 1102 E. Hemlock, urges the Commission to consider the importance of protecting the wetlands for water quality and wildlife habitat. Ms. Gilmore supports the first version of the Commission's ordinance. Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue SE, was on the Mayor's Task Force that examined the Kent lagoon and the subcommittee for the current critical area draft. He felt the revised ordinance protects the wetlands, provides flexibility to developers and provides exemptions for the small residential homeowner. Mr. Miles commented it does provide that any filling of a wetland will require mitigation. He commented Version A which allows up to 10,000 square feet to be filled and replaced is feasible. However, he expressed concerns about Version B. He urged that Version A of the revised ordinance be adopted. Steve Burpee, 1048 James, representing Kent Chamber of Commerce, commented the Chamber represents all types of businesses including developers. Mr. Burpee stated a healthy environment helps deliver 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 a quality of life for everyone. However, jobs mean a quality of life. Mr. Burpee felt what was needed is a balance; something, that recognizes all factors involved. This wetland issue has been worked on for many years. The Chamber. has felt they have continually put forth their concerns and brought forth what they felt would be a compromise or balanced approach. He commented they felt they were constantly ignored and not listened to. When it became clear that most of their concerns were not going to be addressed, they came up with their own version. Mr. Burpee continued saying that when they disagree they reserve the right to present their concerns on issues prior to the final adoption of the regulations. Further, the Planning Commission's step is only one step in the process of writing and developing new regulations. Commissioner Dahle asked why the Chambers did not present their report to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. Mr. Burpee felt the Chambers concerns and recommendations weren't going to be considered and they wanted their concerns to be heard. The report was finished prior to the Commission voting on the recommended draft to City Council. He commented it was not brought to the Commission because the Chambers felt their concerns were not addressed during the process. Commissioner Haylor pointed out the rules were made to be followed. He commented the original draft wasn't completely to his liking; however, he attempted to change it at the Commission level. He felt that Mr. Burpee has shown that if he doesn't like something he can go around the Commission. Commission Haylor resented that the Chamber's proposed changes weren't presented to the Commission first. Mr. Burpee asserted that Commissioner Haylor was entitled to his opinion and the Chambers can have theirs. It was his understanding that when a project is sent to the City Council, additional comments could be made. Mr. Burpee supported the draft B. A. J. Fisher, 26029 119th Drive SE, has resided for 25 years in Kent. He commented that he has seen the development over the years. Further, since the valley has been rapidly constructed, it now floods every time it rains. Mr. Fisher contended that there must be controls over development. He recommends that the original draft be sent to the Council. Ted Knapp, 612 Bellevue Way NE #201, Bellevue, chaired the subcommittee and was also involved with preparing the original draft as well as the Chamber's draft. Mr. Knapp felt that on all issues except for Section 12, a consensus was reached. Mr. Knapp 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 felt draft B is very workable. Mr. Knapp submitted.a position paper to the Commission supporting the draft ordinance and the language in draft B for Section 12. Further, the area figure shown in Section 12 which is 20,000 square feet should be changed to one acre. He suggested that the area shown in Section 12 B 2 d be changed from 2,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. This would allow the filling of up to one acre of wetland without doing an alternative analysis but would require full mitigation pursuant to the other provisions of the ordinance. The second change affects the mitigation bank if a mitigation bank were to be established. In addition, in that section, it should be for all zones not just residential. Mr. Knapp stated the changes were Section 12 B 2 E for 2,000 to 10,000 square feet and Section 12 B 2 C and Section 12 B 2 D is changed to from 20,000 square feet to one acre. Joyce Farnier, 22815 68th Avenue S., strongly commented on the effect of development on her land. John Kiefer, 11048 SE 274th, felt the flooding problem was created by developers, the City of Kent and everyone who lives here. He commented there are probably ways to correct this injustice. Mr. Kiefer supports the original Planning Commission's proposal. Laurie Johnston, PO Box 161, Renton, 98057, commented she has been on various environmental task force committees and has followed this issue for a number of years. Ms. Johnston supports the original draft ordinance. IT WAS MOVED, SECOND AND CARRIED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chair Martinez distributed a communication from Mark Stiefel. Further, the discussion will continue to 10:00 pm and if a decision has not been reached, the meeting will be continued to March 8, 1993 as a special meeting to consider the critical areas draft ordinance only. Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the Subcommittee draft be accepted through the WHEREAS section, pages 1 and 2. Commissioner Haylor asked for clarification on proceeding on how the ordinance is to be accepted or changed. Chair Martinez explained that the Commission voted on the critical area draft and sent it to City Council for their consideration. City Council remanded the draft back to the Commission with new information that should be considered. A subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee considered the new information and recommended changes to the critical area draft ordinance. The Commission then - Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 re -opened the public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the revised critical area ordinance. The public hearing has been closed and the Commission will now vote on the amended critical area ordinance and recommend the amended ordinance to the City Council. Mr. Brubaker commented that is correct. Further, the City Council specifically asked the Planning Commission to consider the Chamber of Commerce's input. Mr. Brubaker stated the Commission has the subcommittee's draft dated January 1993 to consider tonight. However, the Commission can reaffirm the original draft or accept the amended critical area ordinance or modify both. Mr. Brubaker stated the City Council remanded the ordinance back to the Commission to reconsider new information. No specific.action has to be taken concerning an earlier vote since discussion was re- opened and now the Commission has closed the discussion and they can either reaffirm or modify the decision. The amendments to the ordinance, if any, would then go back to the City Council for determination. Mr. Brubaker clarified that the Commission can void or repeal the previous ordinance, the Commission can reaffirm the earlier decision or the Commission can accept modifications as shown on the draft document. Mr. Brubaker stated that the draft document is the original document showing the modifications or deletions as recommended to the Commission by the subcommittee. Chair Martinez commented the Commission can either adhere to the original document or the original document can be changed. A MOTION was made and SECONDED that the Commission vote again to accept what was originally recommended. MOTION WAS DEFEATED. MOTION made and SECONDED that the Commission go through section by section and consider the recommendations made in the Subcommittee Discussion Draft dated January 1993 to the original City of Kent Wetlands Regulations (Draft). A friendly amendment was made that the Commission vote on the draft in its entirety. Mr. Brubaker commented the easiest way to consider this matter is to make a motion to vote to approve the modifications and then all the modifications would come under discussion and the Commission could approach modification item by item and make a final decision. That way the entire document would come under discussion or it could be discussed section by section and then after a determination is made, the motion could be defeated, friendly amendments could be made, or new amendments could be made. Commissioner Morrill repeated his motion: that the Commission go through the recommended amendments section by section and adopt FA Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 each section as it finishes each section. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE TO ACCEPT THE WHEREAS SECTION, PAGES 1 AND 2, SECONDED AND CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 1 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 2 as it appears. Friendly amendment made to amend section to include priority habitats. Friendly amendment approved. MOTION with amendment CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 3 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 4 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 5 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED to amend Section 5 to include Section A. 1. A., species identified in Kent as needing special protection. MOTION DEFEATED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 6 with note as it appears with the following exception: Section 6.A. to stated owner OR occupant. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 7 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 8 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 9 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 10 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 11 with the following amendment. Commissioner Martinez asked for a friendly amendment to include the following language: enhanced wetland buffers made be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where the City determines that the buffer, as enhanced by the applicant, will provide greater 0 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 protection of wetlands...., to the end of that section and then add, approved landscaping vegetation must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements. COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AMENDMENT. Commissioner Dahle thought paths and trails had to be 50 feet from wetlands and shorelines. Mr. Harris commented the 50 foot requirement only applied to the Green River and not a wetland. Mr. Brubaker commented that if there were more than one ordinance applied to a section of land, the more restrictive ordinance would apply. MOTION CARRIED ACCEPTING SECTION 11 AS AMENDED. MOTION and SECONDED to continue the meeting to March 8 at 7:00 pm. MOTION CARRIED. JPH/ch: a:pcmin2.22 Respectfully submitted, 9 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: LAKE FENWICK ANNEXATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is an annexation of a 60-acre parcel of land within the proposed expansion area for the City's Lake Fenwick Park. The parcel is wholly owned by the City and is contiguous with existing City boundaries. As such, the Council is empowered to annex this territory for municipal parks and recreation purposes on its own initiative by ordinance. 3. 4. 5. MR EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee (3-0) and staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember )L? moves, CouncilmemberLVV_seconds that Ordinance No., annexing certain territory to the City of Kent for municipal purposes, be adopted. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4F ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, annexing certain territory to the City of Kent, Washington for municipal parks and recreation purposes. i WHEREAS, RCW 35A.14.300 authorizes the Legislative body of Municipal Code Cities, by majority vote, to annex certain territory outside its city limits, whether contiguous or non- contiguous, for municipal purposes, and WHEREAS, the City of Kent owns a parcel of land, approximately 60 acres in size, which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which is contiguous to the existing territorial limits of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent's Parks and Recreation Department plans to utilize this parcel as a portion of its proposed expansion of the City's Lake Fenwick Park; and WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable rules and regulations governing the King County Boundary Review Board, the City may annex territory that it wholly owns for municipal purposes without filing a Notice of Intent with the King County Boundary Review Board so long as the property is less than 100 acres in size and is contiguous with the City's existing boundary; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted its SEPA review of the proposed annexation after submittal of an environmental checklist, 'j and the appropriate SEPA responsible official has issued a' Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the proposes annexation; and 1 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest and benefit to tr public, and in particular the citizens of Kent, to annex this) parcel of property for City parks and recreation purposes; NOW, THEREFORE j THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The above -mentioned findings and recitals arel found to be true and correct in all respects. Section 2. The property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby annexed to the City of Kent. Section 3. The City Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this ordinance to the King County Boundary Review Board. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR K Ij II i ATTEST: I'I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1992• APPROVED the day of 1992• PUBLISHED the day of 1992• I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. IKFENANX.prk BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M., less county road; the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter less the North half of the South half of Section 26, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M. less county road; the North half of the South half- of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M., less road; and the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the ,.� Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M. less county road. —i END Or EXHIBIT "A" CC) 1. SUBJECT: #0 PERMIT PROCESS DIRECTION Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Other Business 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed at the Council/Department Head retreat on April 12, 1993, this item will consider action to delay establishment of one organization for permit pro- cessing, pursuant to Resolution No. 1348 adopted by City Council at its March 16 meeting, pending consideration of input from a meeting to be scheduled by the City Council with local developers, department heads, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties. 3. ORR MOVED to delay establishment of one organization for permit processing, pending the outcome of a meeting to be held on April 26 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4, with Councilmembers, Mayor Kelleher, Administration, Department Heads, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, local developers and other interested parties. White seconded and the motion carried. 5. — liOVAL/rua�u va. �. a.a, ovaa,• a...................... .... .. ........ww....v cu 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE bF FUNDS: 7. Councilmember o delay establishment si pending the outc at 7: p.m. in the Co department heads, repr A6,j0qt,,S and other interested p DISCUSSION: ACTION: , Councilmember tA seconds one organization for permit proces- f a meeting to be held on April 26 it ti ambers with local developers, nta ies. Council Agenda Item No. 4G RESOLUTION NO. J A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the creation of a new organization setting forth the Council's and Mayor's commitment to the formation of a one -stop permit center; and, outlining a series of policy statements to guide the development of a permit service process that will result in the highest levels of public safety, while ensuring maximum public accountability, streamlined and cost effective delivery of quality public services. WHEREAS, the City Council has continuously expressed a long term commitment to have the permit process improved, as reflected in their prior and present annual Target Issue agenda for the City; and WHEREAS, the City previously had a management study prepared by the Warner Group Consultants, which recommended the creation of a new line department for Building and Inspections; and WHEREAS, the permit review and processing functions currently remain decentralized among three departments; and WHEREAS, the Mayor formed an Advisory Committee on the Permit Process to review the permit system, and the Advisory Committee made a recommendation to establish a separate entity for processing development/building permits, and making inspections; and WHEREAS, the council's desires to consolidate these permit processes in order to make significant improvements in efficiency and cost effectiveness, without compromise to public safety; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council believe that since the permit review process is an important integral fiscal component of the budget process, it is sound fiscal policy for the permit process to be reorganized and improved to increase efficiency, public safety and quality of services; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to further this reorganization• in order to enhance economic development opportunities in the community by facilitating the location and start-up operations of new businesses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intent and commitment to create a new organization for the permitting process which includes the current building code enforcement process. The intent would be to have this organization combine related permit functions and create a true one -stop permit center. Section 2. The City Council hereby endorses the administration's effort to coordinate and develop administrative, legal, legislative, financial, and organizational procedures and policies to create the new organization for Council review and action. In order to form this new organization, the administration, with the assistance of the affected department 2 heads, City Attorney, and Human Resources Director, shall submit to the Council a proposed organizational plan. This plan shall be prepared following further direction of Council with respect to the formation, duties, responsibilities, reporting structure and related matters of this organization. This direction will be provided after the scheduled Council/department head retreat in April. The following policy concerns for the new organization should be considered: A. Propose a sound financial strategy for the new organization without significant additional cost impacts to the tax payer. The new organization should have a right -sizing effect. B. Establish organizational objectives and quantifiable (mapping) measures of performance to evaluate personnel, fiscal management practices and effectiveness in achieving the highest reasonable level of quality public services. C. Prepare a specific organizational structure with strategic management policies on permits and related processes, and performance evaluation criteria to evaluate overall provision of public services. All functions of the new organization should be located in one designated physical area. D. With the assistance of the City Attorney and Human Resources Director, establish necessary steps to comply with any related legal requirement necessary to create the new organization. E. Ensure that the new organization will strive to maintain an integral level of coordination with the Fire Department to attain the highest level of public safety. 0 F. Perform these tasks and implement within sixty (60) days of Council direction, to be provided at its Council meeting on April 20, 1993, or as otherwise directed by Council. G. Following said period, the recommendations are to be presented to the Council for approval. Section 3. Following approval of an organizational plan by the Council, appropriate ordinances and funding adjustments to the budget will be adopted to implement this proposal. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this /611 day of , 1993. Y Concurred in by the May of the City of Kent, this /'% day of 1993. KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: D wTilT TT('OPERI CITY GI _RRK Don)N14 Sa)A4J �E Per rY C iTy C [EC K APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 RO ER A. LUB VI , TORN 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PROCUREMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - ORDINANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance would amend the procurement code by requiring reports to the Council for certain contracts entered into, and requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest, as well as other minor amendments to the code. 3. 4 5. 20 7. EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (2-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, adoption of O.d nance No.,l� code. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Councilmember �� seconds amending the City's procurement Council Agenda Item No. 4H ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 3.60 of the Kent City code establishing rules and procedures for entering into procurement contracts for purchases, leases and rentals of supplies, material, equipment or services. WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 3024, now codified in Chapter 3.60 of the Kent City Code, to establish procedures and guidelines directly applicable to the City of Kent for the authorization of procurement contracts for purchases, leases and rental of supplies, material, equipment or services other than architectural and engineering services and certain recycled products; and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend Chapter 3.60 to establish additional procedures relating to professional and consultant contracts; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3.60 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS. 3.60.010. Applicability. Except for Public Works or improvement contracts, any contract for the purchase of materials su lies e ui ment or services of the lease or rental of equipment (( ,)) the estimated cost of which supplies -'exceeds Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($7500) shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter; Provided that the limitations herein do not apply to any purchases of materials at auctions conducted by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or by the State of Washington and any of its political subdivisions. Contract herein shall mean formal written contract, purchase order, verbal agreement, cash or credit purchase from a wholesaler, retailer or dealer, or other similar transaction. Contracts may not be split to avoid the bidding and authorization requirements set forth in this chapter. 3.60.020. Telephone and/or Written Bids or Ouotations. If it appears that the estimated cost of a contract to purchase, materials supplies, equipment or services or the lease or rentr_ of equipment ((use er rent supplies, materials, eq�u-� ss_ ,)) other than professional and consulting services, will not exceed Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000), the City, or the department supervisor with authority, shall attempt to solicit and document at least three (3) telephone and/or written bids or quotations for that contract. 3.60.030. Advertised Bids or Requests for Proposals. If it appears that the estimated cost of a contract to purchase, lease or rent supplies, materials, equipment or services, will exceed Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000), then, at least fifteen (15) days before entering into that contract, the City shall publish notice calling for sealed bids or requests for proposals in a newspaper of general circulation most likely to bring responsive bids. The notice shall generally state the nature of the contemplated purchase, lease or rental agreement and the 2 description or specifications therefor, and it shall require that the bids or proposals be sealed and filed with the City Clerk within the time specified therein. The City Council shall let the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder or shall have power by resolution to reject any or all bids or proposals and to make further call for bids or proposals in the same manner as the original call. A bid conducted by another public agency for substantially the same purchase shall constitute compliance with the bid requirements herein. 3.60.040. Authorization by Mayor Required. Any contract, except for public works or improvement contracts, exceeding Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($7500.00) intended for the purchase, lease or rental of supplies, material, equipment or services must be in writing and approved and signed by the Mayor to become effective and binding upon the City. 3.60.050. Authorization by Council Required. Any contract, except for public works or improvement contracts, exceeding Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000.00) intended for the purchase, lease or rental of supplies, material, equipment or services that has not been awarded in accordance with the advertised bid procedures set forth in Section 3.50.030 of the Kent City Code must be in writing and authorized by a simple majority of the City Council before becoming effective and binding upon the City. ((Thea ef a bid by Geu+= ')) When the Council has specifically considered and approved a particular program in which the amount of the contract and the contracting parties have been identified such as awards of bids funding of certain programs or other similar matters, such consideration 3 shall constitute Council authorization for the purpose of this section. 3.60.060. Professional and Consultant Contracts. This section shall apply to professional and/or technical service consultant contracts in which the City enters into an agreement to purchase consultant services for city government from a corporation firm agency, individual or group of individuals based on their recognized experience and knowledge within a specialized area of expertise. A. Contract Authorization. Contracts for professional and consultant services are not required to follow the procurement requirements set forth in subsections .020 and .030 above and the authorization requirements of subsection .050 above, but rather may be entered into through direct negotiations. All such contracts exceeding seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00), however, they are subject to the authorization requirements of subsection .040 above. B. Contract Reports. The Mayor or his designee shall Prepare and deliver to the City Council's Operations Committee every April and October of each year, or as otherwise directed, a report of all professional and consultant contracts exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15 000 00) The report shall include: 1. The individual firm or entity contracted; 2. The services contracted for; 3. Total cost of the contract services; A. The term of the contract. C- Disclosure Statements. '7 1. Every private consultant firm and/or 1 erformin services for the City, file with the city Clerk a sworn written statement disclosing. a. Any office or directorship held by any city em to ee his or her spouse, or any member of his or her immediate family in the firm or or anization rovidin contract services; b. Any financial interest held by any Cif employee, his or her s ouse or any member of his or her immediate family in the firm or organization providing contract services as follows: i. ownership of over five percent (50) of the stock or other form of interest in the firm or organization providing contract services• ii. Receipt of any amount of salary from the firm or individual Providing contract services. c. All contracts between the private consulting firm and/or individual and City of Kent in the five ears immediately Precedingthe Presently contemplated contract including the amount of money aid by the City of Kent to the consu ting firm and/or individual pursuant to the contract; d. Any position or positions on any City board commission or committee whether salaried or unsalaried held by any officer or director of the firm or organization providing contract services; i, When awarded the contract the private consulting firm and/or individual shall not serve on any city board commission or committee during the duration of the contract if servinq on such board commission or committee could result in a conflict of interest with the services to be provided under the contract. 5 D. Consultant contracts for preparation of environmental documents prepared as required by the State Environmental Policy Act RCW 43 21C are exempt from the requirements of Section .050 and this Section .060 however, such contracts are subject to the requirements -of Section .040 regarding authorization by the Mayor. 3.60.070. Architectural and Engineering Services. All contracts for architectural and engineering services entered into by the City are governed by Chapter 61, Laws of 1981 (RCW 39.80), and all amendments thereto. 3.60.080. Waiver. The procurement requirements set forth in subsections_.020 and .030 above may be waived by a written determination by the City Administration or the applicable department head with authority that either the materials, supplies, equipment or services are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source.of supply within the near vicinity, or that the materials, supplies, equipment or services are subject to special market conditions or that a bid would otherwise not be practicable or in the City's best interests under the circumstances. The city's written determination shall also recite why this situation exists. Actions taken under this section are subject to RCW 39.30.020. 3.60.090. Emergencies. When any emergency requires the immediate execution of any contract to purchase, lease or rent as described in this Chapter, upon the finding of the existence of such an emergency, the City or its designated department head with authority shall have the power to make and enter into such contract without strict compliance with the 11 procurement requirements set forth in this chapter, provided that the City or the designated department head issues a written basis for the emergency determination accompanied by a description and/or specification and cost estimate of the contract within seven (7) days after the commencement of the purchase. 3.60.1.00. Exception for Recycled Products. Nothing in the Chapter shall prohibit the City from preferentially purchasing products made from recycled materials or products that may be recycled or reused. 3.60.110. Requests for Proposals. In lieu of advertised bids as required in this chapter, requests for proposals may be utilized when deemed appropriate under such terms and conditions determined suitable to meet the needs and requirements of the particular procurement. Section 2. Invalidity. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 7 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of APPROVED the day of PUBLISHED the day of 1993. 1993. . 1993. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK procure.ord ( SEAL) Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS WATERMAIN REBUILDS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening was held on April 2nd and nine bids were received. The low bid was submitted by Briggs Construction in the amount of $281,200.99. The Public Works Committee has recommended this bid be accepted, subject to receipt of references. Ajp, -F So NLOVEs) ")Q-pd5 S e c o v\ J P-d c,- VA& +tA e wI o f-I' o 0 G-OL r r � '4�d . 3. EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes, bid summary memo from Public Works Director and reference verification memo 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on the agenda (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended No EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION• Councilmember 0) moves, Councilmember seconds that the contract for Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds be awarded to Briggs Construction in the amount of $281,200.99. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 7, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM & RE: MISCELLANEOUS WATER MAIN REBUILDS Bid opening was April 2, 1993 with 9 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Briggs Construction in the amount of $281,200.99. It is recommended that this bid be accepted and the contract awarded to Briggs Construction. BID SUMMARY 1. Briggs Construction $281,200.99 2. R.W. Scott Construction 285,991.15 3. Suburban Mechanical 291,559.40 4. Robison Construction 297,854.05 5. V & J Hauling & Excavating 300f488.93 6. Virginia L. Seitz Const. 315,932.32 7. Merlino Construction 317,775.83 8. Tri-State Construction 459,371.33 9. Como Contractors 468,346.94 Engineer's Estimate $318,055.52 T1617 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 14, 1993 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROM� RE: MISCELLANEOUS WATERMAIN REBUILDS As recommended by the Public Works Committee, verification of references were made on Briggs Construction. The results of these references were mixed and not sufficient to reject Briggs Construction as incapable of performing the work on this project. hearing with Council adoption on May 4th. Committee unanimously recommended Council approval for the public hearing and first reading of the Cable T.V. Franchise for April 20th. Brubaker requested an Executive Session immediately following the meeting. Parking Policy Review Wickstrom stated that this agreement is associated with the City's parking requirements in relationship to the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction law. Under the agreement, the City will receive $20,000 (grant) for this effort. Although the Mayor has already signed this, as a procedural matter we need Council authorization for same establishing the budget. Committee unanimously recommended approval. 196th/200th St Corridor Interagency Agreement Wickstrom stated that this is a draft agreement between the City and County for the 196th/200th street project. The County is paying their share and every year the County budgets for the improvement and every year they are required to enter into a new agreement to do so. Wickstrom stated that this gives us $2,080,000 to spend for the project. Wickstrom said that the reason this agreement is in draft form, is that dollar figure may increase. Committee unanimously recommended Council authorization for the Mayor to sign this agreement. Van Doren Way Vacation (64th Ave to S. 228th St) Wickstrom stated there is a proposed development within the plat of Van Doren's Landing which may need to vacate Van Doren Way. This is a major potential development that the builder would need to occupy in July and in order to do so we want to give the developer tentative approval now, so that between now and April 20th, if the developer comes in with his formal vacation request, we can then process it at the April loth Council meeting. Committee unanimously recommended approval. Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds Wickstrom explained there was only enough time to check the three low bids prior to putting the Committee's packets together. However, after checking the remaining bids the original fourth bidder, Briggs Construction, ended up being the low bidder with a 3 bid of $281,200.99 and we are proposing to award them this bid. In response to Bennett, Wickstrom explained that Briggs had made an error in his bid which in turn made him low bidder. Wickstrom stated that we cannot deny awarding Briggs the job. Wickstrom said that in the bid proposal, there were several different schedules in which we had noted that the lowest price in any one schedule will govern throughout the schedule; Briggs had different prices for the same item in various schedules. Since we had specifically stated that we will take the lowest and correct his bid to that, we do not have a choice but to award this project to Briggs. Committee unanimously recommended awarding to Briggs contingent upon references received. �Ie,,- v (� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 20, 1993 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUILDING 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening was held on March 29th with six bids received. The low bid was submitted by Foss Environmental in the amount of $45,428.00.� W46wever, this bidder should be rejected as non-responsive,awd It is the Public Works Committee's recommendation that the second low bid, submitted by Safety Storage Company in the amount of $56,436.00, be accepted. W4(T"E SO MpJED, I,JOc)cds SeC00coed OQ Me- YV�O%Bh Ca (-(, 8d . 3. EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 vote) with Jim White's approval for placement of this item on the agenda (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO �< YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: / �) Councilmember JLJN moves, Councilmember G � � seconds that the low bid for Hazardous Materials Building as submitted by Foss Environmental be rejected as non -responsive for the reasons denoted in the Public Works Director's memorandum (attachment therewith) and that contract be awarded to Safety Storage Company in the amount of $56,436.00. DISCUSSION. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1993 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Wor s Director SUBJECT: Hazardous Materials Building/Spray Handling Facility/Bid Awards Bid openings for the two (2) Hazardous Materials Storage Buildings for Equipment Rental and Street Vegetation were held on Monday, March 29th, 1993. The bidders for the basic buildings and options are as follows: 1. Foss Environmental Building A $15,320.00 Building B $ 12,020.00 Total Base Bid $ 27,340.00 Options $ 18,088.00 Total Bid $ 45,428.00 2. Safety Storage Company Building A $23,612.00 Building B $ 18,484.00 Total Base Bid $ 42,096.00 Freight inc Options $ 14,340.00 Total Bid $ 56,436.00 3. Haz-Stor Building A $24,000.00 Building B $ 21,000.00 Total Base Bid $ 45,000.00 Options $ 18,276.00 Total Bid $ 63,276.00 4. Precision Quincy Corp. Building A $26,950.00 Building B $ 24,750.00 Total Base Bid $ 51,700.00 Options $ 18,790.00 Total Bid $ 70,490.00 5. Elder Companies Building A $26,432.00 Building B $ 23,106.00 Total Base Bid $ 49,538.00 Options $ 25,330.00 Total Bid $ 71,268.00 6. Gelfel Group Ltd. Building A $37,181.00 Building B $ 32,312.00 Total Base Bid $ 69,493.00 Options $ 38,560.00 Total Bid $108,453.00 The apparent low bidder is Foss Environmental Services at $45,428.00. This bidder should be rejected as non -responsive for the following reasons: A) Did not provide a copy of letter indicating that bidder is FM approved, as required by specification description, Basic Structure. B) Did not provide printed literature as published by the factory to Bid Form, which describes and sets out equipment proposed to be furnished as required by bid requirements. C). Did not provide three references within 100 miles of the City of Kent where bidders product may be inspected as required by Specification Description, General. The Public Works Department recommends rejection of the apparent low bid from FOSS Environment as being non -responsive and award the contract to Safety Storage Company in the amount of $56,436.00. bid of $281,200.99 and we are proposing to award them this bid. In response to Bennett, Wickstrom explained that Briggs had made an error in his bid which in turn made him low bidder. Wickstrom stated that we cannot deny awarding Briggs the job. Wickstrom said that in the bid proposal, there were several different schedules in which we had noted that the lowest price in any one schedule will govern throughout the schedule; Briggs had different prices for the same item in various schedules. Since we had specifically stated that we will take the lowest and correct his bid to that, we do not have a choice but to award this project to Briggs. Committee unanimously recommended awarding to Briggs contingent upon references received. �> Hazardous Materials Building Wickstrom explained that the low bidder on this project was not responsive for the following reasons: A) Did not provide a copy of letter indicating that bidder is FM (facilities material) approved, as required by specification description, Basic Structure, B) Did not provide printed literature as published by the factory to Bid Form, which describes and sets out equipment proposed to be furnished as required by bid requirements, and, C) Did not provide three references within 100 miles of the City of Kent where bidders product may be inspected as required by Specification Description, General. As such, we are recommending that his bid be rejected as non -responsive and that the award be to the second low bidder, Safety Storage Company. Committee unanimously recommended awarding to Safety Storage Company. Bike Trail Extension - Earthworks Park Wickstrom stated that staff has prepared two estimates; one for a bike trail up the Mill Creek Canyon and one for Canyon Drive in conjunction with sidewalk improvements. The estimate in the canyon is approximately $3 million and the estimate up Canyon Drive is approximately $800,000. Staff recommends, if.a bike trail is desired, to put it on the road. Wickstrom said we are updating our Six Year TIP and this project could be included therein, were the Committee to concur. Wickstrom said these types of bike trail, pedestrian projects are good candidates for federal grants. Committee unanimously recommended approval of a bike trail up Canyon Drive, to be included in the Six Year TIP. Safeway/Langston Landing - Left Turns Mann had requested that this item be brought back to Committee. Discussion followed regarding the problem of turning left out of Safeway onto Washington Ave. Wickstrom explained that one problem 4 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMI D. PLANNING COMMI E. PUBLIC SAFETY F. PARKS COMMI G. BUDGET COMMITTEE `, H. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT { MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/AD - HPDesk print. ------------------------------------- S=ject: 4/20 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Dated: O1/06/93 at 0949. TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS THE LIBRARY GRASS IS IN, PLEASE STOP BY FOR A LOOK. THE COMPLETION OF THE RETREAT WENT WELL, WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVING NEW IMPETUS TO MEET THE GOALS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WE TALKED ABOUT OUR TEAM AND OUR TEAM AGENDA, WHICH REALLY FOCUSES ON MEETING YOUR GOALS. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFICULT FINANCIAL TIMES WE ARE IN AND THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE OPERATION OF THE CITY WITH THE ELECTION OF A FULL TIME MAYOR THIS FALL. THE MID MANAGERS ALSO HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH LYLE WITHOUT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. WHEN WE GET THEIR CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS WE WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. AS A WHOLE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS REALLY APPRECIATED THE MUTUAL EXCHANGE ON COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES MONDAY NIGHT AND LOOK FORWARD TO MORE JOINT SESSIONS. UPCOMING EVENTS 4/22 CHAMBERS KING COUNTY REDISTRICTING MEETING PROCESS MEETING 4/26 CHAMBERS ONE ORGANIZATION FOR PERMIT APR/MAY CHAMBERS WETLANDS WORKSHOPS r OPENING OF SATURDAY MARKET ;°.L6-17 KM/PAR3 BALLOON CLASSIC 7/16-18 CORNUCOPIA DAYS FESTIVAL 8/21-22 MILL CRK CANTERBURY FAIRE 11/18 SNR CNTR 8TH ANNUAL TOWN HALL MEETING WINTERFEST PARADE & HOLIDAY LIGHTING CEREMONY 12/4 KENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 1, 1993 The scheduled meeting of the Kent Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chair Raul Ramos on the evening of Monday, February 1 1993, at 7 p.m. in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS: Raul Ramos, Chair Ron Banister, Vice Chair Berne Biteman Jack Cosby Walter Flue CITY STAFF MEMBERS: James P. Harris, Planning Director Janet Breed Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CITY ATTORNEY: Roger Lubovich APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 7.1992 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Mr. Biteman MOVED that the minutes of the December 7, 1992 meeting be approved as written. Mr. Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Roger Lubovich presented to the Board the Criteria for Granting a Variance as set forth in a memorandum to the Board from the Office of the City Attorney. The criteria are the same as stated in the state statute. The Board must make findings on these criteria before they can grant a variance. He pointed out that the code prohibits use variances, those which seek a variance on a use that is not specifically permitted in a zoning district. The burden is on the applicant to show satisfaction of ordinance and statutory standards for a variance request. Chair Ramos administered the oath to all who intended to speak. LLEWELLYN PARKING VARIANCE - #V-92-5 Ms. Shull presented the applicant's request for a variance from Section 15.05.070(B) of the Kent Zoning..Code, that is the maximum surface parking requirement of no more than three stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise, district. The subject property is located at 623 West Meeker Street. Five surface parking stalls for this property are allowed. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow up to 16 parking stalls. The applicant is requesting 12 stalls with four Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 1, 1993 additional stalls for proposed future parking needs. The lot has frontages on both West Meeker and West Harrison Streets. Economic Goal 41 Objective 11 Policy 3 encourages the use of established off- street parking areas rather than creating more small private lots. The purpose of the DCE zoning district is to encourage and promote higher density mixed -use development while enhancing the pedestrian - oriented nature of the downtown. Staff is trying to encourage the use of existing parking areas, on -street parking and public lots, and to encourage more intensive use of downtown Kent's limited land resources. 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with a limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property, on behalf of which the application was filed, is located. Staff feels that if the Board approves this variance, this would constitute a grant of special privileges. Non- residential development in the DCE district is subject to the surface maximum parking requirement. Any adjacent development which was permitted prior to adoption of ordinance 3050, which was the ordinance which implemented the DCE district regulations, would not have been subject to the maximum requirements. However, all subsequent development must conform to the latest version of the Kent Code. The applicant felt that uses adjacent to the site have more parking than is allowed on this site. Properties in the two -block area around the proposed site had a range from .5 stalls per 1,000 square feet to 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet, which is greater than currently allowed. The request is for 9 stalls per thousand square feet, which is more than exists on any of the adjacent properties. Staff felt that granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 2. Such a variance is necessary, because of circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Staff could find no special circumstances relating to this site. The purpose of the variance is to provide the applicant with an avenue to seek relief where practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general purposes of the zoning code might result from the strict application of certain 01) Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 1, 1993 provisions. The applicant has failed to indicate where the applicant shall experience any of the above -mentioned conditions by complying with the maximum parking requirement for the DCE zone. The applicant has only indicated a preference for more parking. Without a clear finding of uniqueness or special hardship, by granting this variance staff would be communicating lack of support of maximum surface parking which was specifically adopted to discourage on -site parking development. That was the specific intent of the legislation. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Public Works Department felt that since the same number of vehicle trips would be generated whether or not the parking was provided on the site, there would be no increase in pollutants generated and therefore would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. If the variance were approved, on -site detention of stormwater would be required in accordance with Kent standards. Staff recommended denial of this variance request. Morgan Llewellyn, representing John and Jill Bianco, stated that they are currently operating a chiropractic clinic at Second and Gowe and have been in Kent for ten years. The intent of the ordinance was to encourage a pedestrian -oriented environment, but this would not be forced on new developments. He felt that the market should determine what is going to happen. He felt there should be an orderly progression to the high density vision for downtown Kent. The application requests 12 parking stalls. The additional four are shown as proposed in case they are needed in the future. The development would not be able to function with five stalls because the chiropractic business needs easy access for its patients. When a patient has a bad back, this patient wants to get as close to the front door as possible. He felt the code needs to be flexible and that this particular portion of the code would have an adverse impact on the development of Kent. He felt it would be imposing the Growth Management Act too early. Forcing a pedestrian -oriented development before the density is in the area would kill incentive for investment in downtown Kent. He felt Kent needs an interim step to allow some development before it gets to the point where the interim development will allow the demand to catch up, and as the demand catches up and Kent gets the density, then Kent can have a pedestrian -oriented site. The intent of the task force was to loosen the development standards, 3 Kent Board of Adjustment Minutes February 1, 1993 not to further restrict them. The intent of the ordinance was to spur development in downtown Kent. The building is appropriate except for the amount of available parking. The applicant will comply with Public Works requirements and other current development standards. Parking congestion in the immediate area was discussed. The driveway would be directly across from the Senior Housing. Discussion followed. Berne Biteman MOVED to close the public hearing. Walter Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Cosby MOVED that the request be granted for twelve parking stalls because it does not constitute a grant of special privilege, that the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography location, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements. The Board felt that they have the authority to grant a variance for practical difficulties, where practical difficulties unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the code would result in the strict application of the provisions. Mr. Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Ramos stated that he was planning to resign from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Biteman MOVED that Jack Cosby serve as chairman for 1993- Mr. Flue SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Banister MOVED that Berne Biteman serve as vice chairman for 1993. Mr.Cosby SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cosby MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, J es Har is, Secretary 4 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES April 6, 1993 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Tony McCarthy May Miller Roger Lubovich Tom Brubaker Don Wickstrom Sue Viseth Alana McIalwain Dee Gergich MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Don McDaniels Lon Hurd Miles Overholt Bill Doolittle Al Barry The meeting was called to order at 2:40 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending 3/15/93 in the amount of $1,207,247.03; and for the period ending 3/31/93 in the amount of $2,077,595.32 were approved. DEBT REFINANCING PROPOSALS Acting Finance Director Miller updated the Committee regarding the two refinancing proposals for a portion of the City's voted and non -voted bond issues. She noted that Standard & Poor's will maintain the City's A+ bond rating which is good news due to current economic conditions. She stated that Dick King, Lehman Brothers, has notified them that to proceed with refinancing may not be in the best financial interest of the City at this time because the market has been flooded with refinancing proposals, but that he will continue to evaluate the market and bring the most current information to the City. Al Barry, Lehman Brothers, discussed and passed out information regarding the General Obligation Bonds Refunding and a Revenue Bond Buyer Index chart. ORR MOVED approval for the City to continue working with Lehman Brothers and, whenever feasible, to bring the refinancing issue to Council. Houser seconded and the motion carried 2-0. PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS City Attorney Lubovich explained that the ordinance modifications will provide for reporting of consultant contracts and include such things as: 1) who the contract is with; 2) what it is for; 3) the compensation amounts, and; 4) the term. He noted that the ordinance will require a report to be submitted to the Council every six months and that a disclosure statement form is included to make sure that there is no conflict of interest with those entering into a contractual agreement. ORR MOVED for the approval of the Procurement Ordinance Modifications with the condition that it isn't causing too much work for City staff. Houser seconded and the motion carried 2-0. ACCEPTANCE OF PUGET POWER GRANT - SENIOR HOUSING Administration Manager McIalwain stated that these funds, in the amount of $23,470, are being received from Puget Power as a result of the City meeting some energy codes. She explained that the City spent about $18,000 in addition to the original contract with the Bellewood Corporation and that Larry Metier informed her of this grant opportunity for which the City applied. ORR MOVED to accept the Puget Power Grant money of $23,470. Houser seconded and the motion carried 2-0. CABLE TV REFRANCHISING AGREEMENT UPDATE Assistant City Attorney Brubaker clarified that this will be an action item for the Committee. He noted that there are two separate draft ordinances attached which need approval: 1) Kent Master Ordinance, which applies to all cable TV companies doing business in Kent, and; 2) Kent Franchise Ordinance with TCI. He explained that cable TV companies need a franchise ordinance in order to operate their systems using the City's right-of-ways and streets, and that the current franchise agreement will terminate at the end of 1993. He noted that Federal law controls the city's franchising authority but that the city has authority to grant a franchise. He noted that the City is more or less obligated to reissue a franchise unless it can prove the cable operator has totally failed in providing minimum levels of service. He stated that the City's single most bargaining tool is the length of the franchise term. He passed out a bulletin from 3-H Cable Communications Consultants regarding Cable Television Rate Regulations, dated April 6, 1993 (a new Federal law). He explained that things have to be done before this law will have any impact even though its already been passed. He reviewed the current franchise and what the new franchise would offer the City. ORR MOVED to approve the Kent Franchise Ordinance and the Kent Master Ordinance, and send on to the Council for two public hearings, one for each ordinance, to be held on the same day. Houser seconded and the motion carried 2-0. Lubovich clarified that the Master Ordinance has to be put in place and adopted before the Franchise Ordinance can be adopted. Brubaker explained that these were draft ordinances that would probably be amended slightly before adoption. U S WEST CELLULAR SERVICE - ADDED ITEM Dee Gergich, Telecommunications Analyst, noted that this is an information item only. She noted that Police Chief Crawford was presented by the Kent Police Union an agreement for US West Cellular to provide government rates to the Police Officers for personal use. She noted that McCarthy agreed to let them work it out and asked her to research the possibility of offering the same service to all employees. Acting Finance Director Miller stressed that the employees would pay their own bills but at the cheaper rate offered at government rates. EXECUTIVE SESSION Assistant City Attorney Brubaker requested an executive session of about 5 minutes to discuss cable negotiations. The meeting recessed into executive session at 3:42 p.m., The meeting reconvened at 3:50 p.m. and was adjourned. Parks Committee Minutes April 6, 1993 Councilmembers Present: Jim Bennett, Chair, and Jon Johnson. Staff Present: Tony McCarthy, Barney Wilson, Don Wickstrom, Roger Lubovich, Tom Brubaker, Alana McIalwain, May Miller, Bill Wolinski, Cheryl Fraser, Patrice Thorell, Helen Wickstrom, Jack Ball, Karen Ford, Ramona Fultz, Grady Kizziar. . Others Present: Sue Goddard, Jean Parietti, Wayne McDonald, Dan Farmer, Bill Doolittle, Pat Curran, Sherri Ourada and Grace Hiranaka. CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PRE -PLANNING. Pat Curran, Sherri Ourada and Grace Hiranaka, representing the Kent Arts Commission and the Mayor's Performing Arts Center Task Force, were in attendance to support this request. Curran, Task Force Chair, reviewed the history of the project noting that $35,000 had been raised for a Feasibility Study that showed through surveys that there was considerable public support for a center. The study was accepted by Council in August of 1991. Due to the tight financial situation, Curran proposed a scaled back project which would be down from a $20 million, 800 seat theater and 120 seat black box theater project to a 500-600 seat facility at a $10 million cost. She stressed that the center would promote downtown revitalization by attracting new money and added that it is the number one priority of Council President Judy Woods, as stated at the Council Retreat. The center is visualized as one for children and families to gather to participate in the arts and become involved in the community. From the $50,000 budgeted in the 1991 CIP, Curran requested that $30,000 be released to contract with Becker Architects for Phase II for an architectural pre -plan and business plan, materials necessary for marketing to financial supporters and the public for a bond issue. Curran explained that King County Hotel/Motel funds won't be available for -a match because of changed rules for pre -planning, but that Becker Architects can provide pre -plan materials for $30,000. Becker Architects is presently working on Kirkland's performing arts center. She thanked the Task Force members and advisors and Cultural Arts staff for three and one-half years of work. In response to a question from Bennett, Curran said a joint venture regarding other proposed facilities would be welcome. Patrice Thorell discussed funding sources for development. She clarified that the pre -plan would include schematic drawings, model of building, footprints on proposed sites, cost estimates, development plan, and impacts. Since the Becker firm has already completed a market study of King County for Kirkland, this does not have to be duplicated. For McCarthy, she expressed confidence in public support of a bond issue, but opined that it would be a lot of work and required materials and a model, as was done with the Senior Center. -2- Thorell said that based on marketing the pre -plan materials, the Kirkland center went from no support to fighting about what site it would be -constructed on. She emphasized that with the group's approaching 4th year anniversary, approval of this phase would be a milestone for continuance. Due to Bennett's concern over cost of various studies, the request of Bennett to tour a number of cultural theaters in the next two weeks and absence of the third committee member, this item will be returned to the April 20th Parks Committee Meeting, Tony McCarthy suggested this be discussed at the upcoming Council retreat, along with the possibility of combining centers. Thorell responded that Kent Elementary School could be expanded into one campus for a Performing Art and Teen Center so that each center would have its own identity, but this would probably require two different studies. McCarthy clarified that the $50,000 CIP amount is still earmarked for the cultural project. Thorell advised that City Attorney Roger Lubovich determined that although it was the legislative intent to have a funding match, it was not a mandate; so that with a changed project, the Council could change with it. In response to comments about survey support, Bill Doolittle stated that of the 401 people who were interviewed, 360 lived outside the City and of the 41 who were inside, 36% supported a tax increase to pay for a cultural center. Thorell advised that visual arts jurors, site architect for East Hill Park, Parks Maintenance and Parks Administration staff met on March 22nd and recommended the artwork of internationally renowned Tucson artist Barbara Grygutis for the two sites. Selected for East Hill Park was the "WATER" artwork, a handmade stoneware tile sculpture composed of five letters six feet high and one foot wide which can be climbed upon. Recommended for West Fenwick is the "EARTH" artwork, a handmade ceramic tile on concrete sculpture with each letter measuring six feet by four feet which will be set into the hillside. The artworks were originally proposed for opposite sites, but due to site considerations such as size and vandalism, the proposals were reversed; the "EARTH" sculpture was also changed to be flush to the sod. Thorell displayed samples of tiles and a sample of the artist's work, explaining that this is a budgeted per capita City Art project. Completion is scheduled for opening of the new East Hill Park. McCarthy reported that the Golf Advisory Board has been in existence for over a year and acknowledged the members in attendance. He noted that the group analyzed the golf operation and determined that an RFP should be developed, which was done under the guidance of Alana McIalwain. McIalwain noted that SSMD Enterprises, Inc., was unanimously selected by the board in a 10-0 vote with Golf Northwest, Inc., chosen as a backup. Sent out were 104 RFP's with a 10% return. Of the eleven returned, one was eliminated for not meeting preliminary criteria. -3- McIalwain listed some of the RFP criteria for the Committee, such as requiring the contractor to be an on -site manager, this being contractor's major source of income, experience in the golf industry, ability to serve the public and financial offering to the City. Reserved was the right to -negotiate with the successful proposer. The RFP was designed as a two phase process including a qualification and proposal evaluation phase and personal interview process phase. McIalwain thanked board members for their work and introduced Sue Goddard, chair of selection committee who shared information on proposers. Goddard said it was significant that the vote ended in a unanimous 10-0 and stated that if negotiations are successful with SSMD, Keith Sanden will be Director of Golf. He is a Kent citizen and Class Eight Pro with extensive experience in the golf industry; he has management and business support groups behind him. She believes operational enhancement will occur and noted the proposal is very detailed covering all aspects of operation (except maintenance --- operations). She was impressed with their affirmative action policy and said the transition plan was outstanding. Sanden would leave his present job in April and be at the site for month of May and will do staff interviews. Goddard said SSMD's long range plans are an integral part of the proposal and speaks well to the five year contract. McCarthy explained the evaluation process. Candidates were evaluated on the 1993 budget, no growth proposal which equated to the 1992 actual and a growth proposal. From the financial ranking along with review of RFP's, five candidates were chosen for interviews which took place last Saturday. Some of the candidates came into the interviews as leaders, but SSMD came out of the interview process ahead based on interview results, enthusiasm and SSMD's long term ability to improve the facility. Although SSMD was not the top financial proposal by,a few thousand dollars, it was the second provider when looking at the growth model. McCarthy reported that through a contract with SSMD, the City should generate from $100,000-200,000 due to savings in the manager's salary ($60,000), City financial charge backs ($20,000) and the amount provided by provider. In addition, the City will receive an up front cas11_ amount of about $167,000 for inventory. - McCarthy added that staff have been notified of possible layoffs and their resumes have been requested for other job considerations either with the contractor or in vacant City positions. Layoff benefit packages will include one month's compensation, medical benefits and outplacement services. Next week the Executive Committee will be hearing a proposal regarding outplacement assistance. -4- KING COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT PROGRAM. Because of low interest rates and available and disappearing property, Helen Wickstrom reported that King County has passed an ordinance making available $60,000,000 for open space grants for this year only, which is 50% of the future Conservation Futures Tax funds that will be collected over the next 25 years. The other half will be available on an annual basis. The-$60,000,000 will be divided into four categories of $15,000,000 each. The City of Kent is eligible for two categories, regional and local, but a compelling need must be shown that funds are needed now. She stated that this is the only open space grant funding available at this time and reviewed grant criteria, point rating system and calendar dates. Regional projects must benefit residents throughout King County and must have open space features important to King County. Properties must be obtained because of threatened development or limited avail -ability of matching funds. Matching funds are not a requirement but give the project a better chance of being funded. In .order to apply, the property must be identified in.an adopted park, open space or comprehensive plan in conformance with the state Growth Management Act, or have an accompanying City Council motion or resolution stating that the property is a high priority acquisition and that it will be included in the appropriate Growth Management Act plans when adopted. She introduced Bill Wolinski, Public Works Department, who gave a presentation on a proposed regional application for a Sewer Lagoon Wetlands/Wildlife Enhancement project in the amount of $1,000,000 for conversion of the abandoned sewage lagoon into a regional flood control and storm water management wetlands and wildlife habitat area. The Public Works Department is initiating design and negotiating for purchase of the additional 210 acres of land west of the lagoon. The land is needed in order to construct the facility and to handle the lagoon dredge material. A specialty firm has been hired to create a dredging and disposal plan. The most favorable economic option would be to use the dredge material to enhance the habitat site for wetlands/wildlife. This project has been selected on the Metro short list for $1,000,000 of mitigation funds for the West Point Sewage Treatment Plant. Wickstrom added that this project would tie in with Parks and Recreation by being next to Green River Corridor Trail and Van Dorm's Landing Park, which would allow for bonus points. For McCarthy; Wolinski-responded that the property is comprised of 5,000 feet of river frontage and the land is undeveloped. Once completed, Wolinski concluded that this project would be of national significance because it integrates the issues of flood control, storm water treatment, wetlands management and wildlife habitat and would be an amenity to the City for passive recreation and public education and awareness. Wolinski clarified for McCarthy that other funding sources are available such as selling Drainage Revenue Bonds and reported that the entire project cost for acquisition and handling dredge material was estimated at $14,000,000, but land acquisition may be less costly due to the present valuation of wetlands. With Metro and possible Conservation Futures funds, the total cost would be defrayed by $2,000,000. For Bennett, Wolinski explained that this project addressed valley flooding. -5- Wickstrom described the proposed local projects. The first is acquisition in the amount of $665,000 for two parcels in Mill Creek Canyon right off 104th. There are only two parcels left which would complete the park and also tie into the Public Works storm retention basin across 104th. Public Works will apply $100,000 toward matching funds which would generate some points (a total match would generate full points). The second project is acquisition of a 13 1/2 acre wooded site off of 248th on East Hill. It is one parcel off of Benson and has five acres separating it from the existing East Hill Park site. If it could eventually be connected to East Hill Park, a 20 acre community park would be created. Wickstrom added that this is a very valuable piece of property, but may not score high. Another project possibility is Riverview Park which is on the regional trail system and on the Green River. Wickstrom requested input for other project ideas. Because local projects have a later application deadline and the scoring criteria was just received, she will evaluate the proposed local projects and return to the Parks Committee with a final report. PARK RENTAL HOUSES. As an informational item, McCarthy reported that Jack Ball recently met with the Executive Committee regarding the future of the rental houses. McCarthy reported other uses under discussion include demolition of the Golf Course house to provide Mini Putt expansion (with the possibility of the new Golf Director providing some funds); future conversion of the Neely house into a museum run by the Kent Historical Society; converting the corrections house and another house into homeless shelters for men or families; and making the West Hill house an interpretive center. If houses are sold that have been purchased with grant funds, the money would have to go back into those projects. McCarthy compared maintenance time and expense and the present need '7or substantial repairs versus the revenue generated. He requested input and authorization to pursue options and return with an update. Bennett agreed with pursuing options and returning Cheryl Fraser introduced Grady Kizziar, a Western Washington Universe y recreation student, who is donating internship hours through May assisting the Resource Center and Parks Administration. He will also serve as the summer Day Camp Director. . KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE April 6, 1993 4:00 PM Committee Members Present Leona Orr, Chair Jon Johnson Planning Staff Lin Ball Betsy Czark Jim Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom City Attorney's Office Laurie Evezich Other City Staff Guests GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. Satterstroml First, Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reported SHB 1761 continues to march through the Legislature with a prognostication that it will doubtlessly pass. This bill would give a one year extension for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act. DCD will be developing a schedule as to when the comprehensive plans will be turned in between January 1994 and July 1994. Therefore, for some counties and cities, this will not be a true one year extension. Also, DCD has not given an extension on the development regulations. Fred will be giving a more detailed presentation on this subject when the Legislature is over. Second, Fred reminded the Committee that the Wetlands Ordinance proposal from the Planning Commission is scheduled to come to the full council on April 20, 1993. Fred made a suggestion to the Council members to view the proposal as a simple matter with a number of options. The first option is the original Planning Commission's recommendation. The second option is a revised recommendation as worked on by the Committee. METRO SUBSIDIZED BUS PASSES - (L. Ball) Due to some changes, this item was pulled from the agenda to be brought back to the Committee on April 20, 1993. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 61 1993 PAGE 2 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING LEVEL - (L. Ball) Human Services Manager Lin Ball explained that the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass -through" funds for its 1994 Community Development Block Grant Program. The 1994 funds from King County is estimated to be $359,845, which is approximately $72,500 higher than the City's 1993 Program. Lin emphasized that this is only an estimate based on a projected 1994 federal entitlement which could change due to changes in the entitlement, program income and recaptured funds. Staff requested that the following actions be approved: 1. Approval to accept 1994 Pass -Through funds. 2. Allocate $48,952 to Public (Human) Services, the maximum available to the City of Kent. 3. Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1994 Pass -Through funds to Planning and Administration ($31,011). 4. Approval of the proposed 1994 Local Program Policies. 5. Forward these recommendations to the full City Council for consideration at its April 20, 1993 meeting. Manager Ball explained the development of Local Program Policies is an annual federal requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent's CDBG Program Policies each year. Kent's 1994 CDBG Local Program Policies are a description of our local strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG funds in the City of Kent. Lin explained three(3) major changes to the 1993 Local Program Policies. The first one is a revision to Part III(B) - "Regional Needs", which addresses a newly established Consortium -wide public services funding pot. The new funding pot will replace the existing consortium -wide emergency shelter and one-time only regional pot. This money will be used to fund public services activities in support of the Affordable Housing requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and assist the City in meeting some of its Affordable Housing human service requirements under GMA. The second change is a revision to Part IV - "Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers", which eliminates reference to projects that can no longer meet the benefit criteria of the federal regulations. Specifically, Lin said the following wording has been eliminated: "projects that link residential areas to the downtown or to community CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 PAGE 3 facilities and services; projects that help implement or complement the Downtown Improvement Plan;". The third change is the deletion of Part IV - "Historic Preservation, which has been deleted as a priority for funding with City CDBG dollars. The County no longer includes this as an eligible activity in its policy plan and encourages cities to also remove it as a category. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the aforementioned five(5) actions. Motion carried. 1994-1996 DRAFT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA) - (L. Ball Human Services manager Lin Ball explained the DRAFT Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) for King County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium is brought to the Committee for their review and input, prior to it going to the Joint Policy Committee (JPC). The agreement governs the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant Consortium, the vehicle by which Kent obtains its federal Block Grant funds. It outlines how funds are shared among Consortium members, includes requirements defined by the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), and covers the specific powers and responsibilities of the jurisdictions within the Consortium. It is necessary to adopt a new Consortium ICA every three years. Manager Ball explained the major changes in the new DRAFT ICA agreement as follows: 1. Creation of a new GMA public services set -aside fund Lin reported the existing one -time -only public services fund would be replaced with a new funding pot which would fund public service activities in support of Affordable Housing requirements under implementation of the state Growth Management Act. 2. Change in Pass -through City Oualification Lin said the amount of money a city is eligible to receive in order to qualify for a direct pass -through of funds has been increased from $25,000 to $50,000. This change doesn't impact the City of Kent since we consistently receive in excess of $200,000. Also, the ICA defines the responsibilities of a city in order to receive a direct pass -through. In order to receive its pass -through dollars, the City of Kent must agree to comply with these responsibilities. Cities which are not able to meet the requirements will have their pass -through status revoked. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 PAGE 4 3. Distribution of Administrative Funds Lin reported the current ICA bases the amount of administrative funds on 7% of the City's entitlement share. The proposed ICA bases the amount on the City's proportion of low- and moderate -income persons, which is a much more equitable process and will benefit the City of Kent because of our large percentage of low- and moderate - income residents. 4. Local Policies/Local Comprehensive Plan Consistency Lin reported the new ICA requires that Consortium cities CDBG Local Program Policies be consistent with their local comprehensive plans being developed under the Growth Management Act. We already meet this requirement. 5. Non -Violent Civil Rights Demonstrations Lin reported a new requirement by HUD is that each city has to certify that it is enforcing local policies which prohibit the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies against individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and that we enforce applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. Lin said that staff has been working with the City-Attorney's office and has been assured that the City can comply with this certification since we do comply with the state laws and our Police Department has policies which address these two items. Manager Ball reported no formal action is being requested at this time on this DRAFT CDBG ICA Agreement. It is being brought to the Committee for review and input, prior to it going to the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) for approval on April 15th. The Committee did not have any concerns or changes. 1994-1996 DRAFT HOME INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA) - (L. Ball) Manager Ball explained the DRAFT HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) for the King County HOME Consortium. She said this agreement covers the City of Kent's participation with the County and other King County cities in the distribution of federal HOME funds. Ball reported in 1993 the management of these funds was covered under the CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, since the same cities were participating in both programs. For the next funding cycle, the Cities of Federal Way and Bellevue have decided to join the HOME Consortium. Since these two cities are not part of the CDBG Consortium, it is necessary to create a separate ICA for HOME. The inclusion of these two cities will benefit the HOME Consortium because the Consortium will CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 61 1993 PAGE 5 receive more dollars from the federal government, due to the larger participation of cities. Ball said this ICA is very straight forward with no "pass -through" of funds. The City's Housing and Human Services staff is involved in the drafting of policies, review of applications, and recommendations for funding. Jim Harris is currently on the HOME Working Committee which makes funding decisions. Manager Ball mentioned a mistake in the draft and passed out a new second page of the Agreement with the following word changes: "The Joint Policy Committee will adopt HOME program policies, developed by a City ( and The County staff working group. and will appr-e�unding deei—,iefys--� HOME project selection committee will make funding decisions. Manager Ball also pointed some other minor word changes may occur in reference to RCW 39.34. on how the funds will be managed and distributed. Attorney Laurie Evezich from the Law Department will have the wording cleared up in a few days. Manager Ball reported no formal action is being requested at this time on this DRAFT HOME ICA. It is being brought to the Committee for review and input, prior to it going to the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) for approval on April 15th. The Committee did not have any concerns or changes. After approval by the JPC, the final ICA will be brought back to the Committee in May for approval and recommendation to forward to the full City Council for final approval. 1993 CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL "STIMULUS" MONEY - (L. Ball) Manager Ball expected to have more information on President Clinton's economic stimulus plan in Congress, but this item is being held up in a filibuster at this point. A big piece of this "stimulus" money is supplemental Community Development Block Grant money. Ball stated that a requirement on this supplemental money will be a tight time line. Chair Orr recommended that Manager Ball contact Judy Woods to see if a memo could be written to the City Council to be able to bend the rules in order to act on this quickly. ADDED ITEMS• Chair Orr mentioned a correction needs to be made on the March 16, 1993 minutes on Short Plat Procedures. She requested a typographical error be corrected in the minutes stating that the Short Plat Procedures be brought back to the Committee not on April 10, 1993, but the correction is April 20, 1993. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. PC0406.MIN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 5, 1993 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Paul Mann, Chairman Leona Orr Jon Johnson Chief Crawford Roger Lubovich Dave Haenel Chief Angelo Dennis Byerly Tony McCarthy Linda Johnson Unidentified Person w/Linda The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Mann. KING COUNTY EMS CONTRACT Fire Chief Angelo explained that the City had entered into a contract with King County Emergency Medical Services, and noted that each year a contract amendment is made to adjust the amount that the City of Kent will receive based upon population, assessed evaluation and the number of calls. He pointed out that the amendment will change the amount of $543,501 in 1992 to $604,719 in 1993, but will not require Council action until it gets to the new cycle. DOWNTOWN KENT PLANT & GARDEN SHOW PROPOSAL Linda Johnson, Kent Downtown Partnership, noted that a Plant & Garden Show has been planned for June 12 & 13 to tie in with the Saturday Market. She passed out a map of the street closures requested and explained what they would like to do. City Attorney Lubovich explained what the.ordinance granting a street occupation permit for the Kent Downtown Partnership entailed. Upon Chief Crawford's request, it was agreed upon that the street closure for Friday, June 11, 1993, would be changed from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. ORR MOVED to approve the adop- tion of the ordinance granting a street occupation permit to the Kent Downtown Partnership. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Dave Haenel, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the ordinance amendment adds the State definition of marijuana. ORR MOVED approval of the amendment to add the State definition of marijuana to the ordinance. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. CONFISCATED WEAPONS Chief Crawford showed various look -alike weapons to the Committee to inform them of what is taking place and what the officers are facing out in the public realm. HLETCKO HOMICIDE - ADDED ITEM Chief Crawford updated the Committee regarding the Hletcko homicide and noted that the Detectives Division did an excellent investigation job which resulted in a first degree murder conviction. He also briefly mentioned the park-n-ride murder by I-5 and the difficulties involved with the investigation. CLUB AVANTI - ADDED ITEM Chief Crawford explained the problems with the patrons of the Club Avanti as follows: (1) cars are parking on Russell Road because the parking lot is packed; 2) noise from the Club disturbing residents of an apartment complex, a trailer complex and the Choice Lodge; 3) people are going to the AM/PM buying beer, drinking it, and having a party in the lot. He noted what is being done to resolve the problems and that the owner of the Avanti has been working very closely with the Police Department to help solve the problems as well. OMNI/BEANERY UPDATE - ADDED ITEM Chief Crawford gave an update concerning the problems that exist between the patrons at the Omni and the Beanery. He noted that last Friday night there were only about 20-30 cars in the parking lot at the Omni. He stated that the Beanery has hired an individual to move cars into the Heath Tecna parking lot. KING COUNTY REPORT REGARDING SUICIDE - ADDED ITEM City Attorney Lubovich noted that the City has just received the report from King County regarding the Chevez suicide and noted that it recommends not pressing any charges. MS. BECKLER LETTER - ADDED ITEM Mann noted that he has received a letter from Ms. Beckler requesting the City to pass ordinances restricting the number of people under one roof, and the number of cars allowed on the pro- perty. Upon Mann's question, Johnson stated that there is an ordinance that does limit the number of people in a single family home under the single family zoning in the City Code Book. Lubovich clarified for Orr that the number limitation is for unrelated people living in a single family home and noted that there are some zoning restrictions pertaining to parking limitations also. He explained how the new amended nuisance ordinance may apply to this type of situation. Chief Crawford noted that he has been in contact with Ms. Magee, another neighbor in the area, and stated that the Police Department has been instructed to patrol the area more often. He noted that something is in the works concerning this type of situation. Orr noted that she will contact the author of the letter by telephone to inform her of the outcome of tonight's meeting. Captain Byerly stated that there were approximately seven cars on the property but that only one would be considered a possible junk vehicle because the other six are currently in use and operable. LIFT OF BURNING BAN - ADDED ITEM Fire Chief Angelo noted that the burning ban will be lifted in the Fire District from the area that is not in the non -tainted area related to the January storm. The non -tainted area will be issued a special one-time permit and the other area which is further east will have the continued on- going burning twice a year. He noted that this information will not be published but that the Fire District will evaluate each one on a case -by -case basis. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.